white hat hacker says: "Please fix the bug first. The chain is under risk at latest commit right now. Make sure every node is patched. Then we will transfer the money back safely after confirming the fix. The detail is as follows (encrypted using https://blockstream.com/pgp.txt)."
This doesn't sound good to me. Why bother asking if they want it send back to the address if you are going to say you can't send it back to the address until they fix something? Feels like stringing along.
This re-enforces and just proves further that bitcoin is secure. With the inflation bug that was exploited in monero and now liquid, also rumored zcash in the past; the theme is that confidential transactions introduce complexity and a large attack surface for exploitation. What many said was one of Bitcoins flaws (lack of onchain privacy) actually is its strength. The trade-off of going without confidential transactions onchain, in exchange for solid transparency and security.
Privacy can still be achieved via coin control, coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning. This liquid hack only proves further how secure Bitcoin really is. Bitcoin does not use confidential transactions which resulted in hacks of things which do like monero, Liquid, (zcash?). I was a fan of liquid network, though going forward I lack confidence in confidential transactions on anything.
This op-return message is signed by the blockstream PGP key, but it was mined in block 965865, while the above "I"m returning most" op-return is in 965869.
The blockstream op-return could be an answer to the white hat if the white hat's op-return sat in mempools for a while, but it seems unlikely. So maybe the "sending most back" message is a response to the blockstream message?
Blockstream replies: "Yes, thank you"
https://mempool.space/tx/8a444eed65c4584f138e08ee138f61490ef73e84f71e14dac3ca66c230cf7e97
white hat hacker says: "Please fix the bug first. The chain is under risk at latest commit right now. Make sure every node is patched. Then we will transfer the money back safely after confirming the fix. The detail is as follows (encrypted using https://blockstream.com/pgp.txt)."
This doesn't sound good to me. Why bother asking if they want it send back to the address if you are going to say you can't send it back to the address until they fix something? Feels like stringing along.
Looks like the "Yes, Thank you." Was reply to this.
I think the "Yes, thank you" is a reply to first message. Just confirmed in same block as hacker's new message.
Samson Now describes it like this:
It's good that at least they are communicating which means they are probably genuine whitehaters.
I highly suspect there's some insider or former employee did this. Why did blockstream even think they woul talk over email?
And now asking to reconfirm address:
source
And now it looks like they are only communicating in encrypted messages.
https://mempool.space/tx/4656114340749ba4aade1affcb2625a1dac37214b32b7d7c242af2ca9fe6d690
At least talking.
I'm hopeful they get downplayed by the whitehat gentleman.
And then the Lbtc shop drowns for good.
https://mempool.space/tx/a6d697a25266ce3c78774fd1d75f896b7af522ada209b0f6228ea497bc49a46d
Looks like 3400 Bitcoin have been returned.
Why don't they establish secure comms with Blockstream instead of using OP_RETURNs?
My best guess is that they are worried about creating more points of contact by which they can be identified?
You mean because they are worried about prosecution? Would make sense to me, even if they are really whitehats
What a wild year it's been (so far)
liquid is a shitcoin
Is there any confirmation that this liquid BTC address?
Looks like they are sending back to the same address.
It's the same Liquid federation wallet address.
Thanks.
I'm taking a position on PREDYX https://beta.predyx.com/market/will-at-least-3500-btc-from-the-liquid-incident-be-recovered-by-september-20-2026-1788738289?ref=PREDYX9ZWAIELT
This re-enforces and just proves further that bitcoin is secure.
With the inflation bug that was exploited in monero and now liquid, also rumored zcash in the past; the theme is that confidential transactions introduce complexity and a large attack surface for exploitation. What many said was one of Bitcoins flaws (lack of onchain privacy) actually is its strength. The trade-off of going without confidential transactions onchain, in exchange for solid transparency and security.
Privacy can still be achieved via coin control, coinjoin, payjoin, coinswap, lightning. This liquid hack only proves further how secure Bitcoin really is. Bitcoin does not use confidential transactions which resulted in hacks of things which do like monero, Liquid, (zcash?). I was a fan of liquid network, though going forward I lack confidence in confidential transactions on anything.
This op-return message is signed by the blockstream PGP key, but it was mined in block 965865, while the above "I"m returning most" op-return is in 965869.
The blockstream op-return could be an answer to the white hat if the white hat's op-return sat in mempools for a while, but it seems unlikely. So maybe the "sending most back" message is a response to the blockstream message?
Wow! If this is a genuine white hat (we're going to teach Blockstream a lesson) and then send all the sats back, what a ride!!
Adam has been kind of seen as the holier than thou on a lot of X beefs with other notable Devs
This surely has to humble the almighty Dr Back
Where does Aqua and others go from here? Trust liquid won't fail again, a bit like trusting coldcard now I guess
Hope that's not too narrative or parroting lolzzz