Bitcoin Community Discusses $3 Million Transaction Fee Paid: Here Are New Details!

0

The cryptocurrency market is talking about a fee of 83.65 BTC (about $3.14 million) for a single transaction on the transfer of 139.42 Bitcoin assets (about $5.23 million) on November 23. This marks the highest transaction fee paid in USD, surpassing the previous record of USD 500,000 paid by Paxos in September.

X with username @83_5BTC account, claimed that the wallet in question belonged to him and that he told the real reason for the events. According to the user, the reason for the transaction in question is a hacking attack. According to the post in the account, this transaction, in which they transferred 139 BTC to a newly established cold wallet, was misused with the attack in question.

The victim not only lost the staggering fee of 83.7 BTC, but also lost 139 BTC in assets. As we reported as Koinfinans.com, there was a total loss of over 5 million USD. The attacker managed to siphon off approximately 56 BTC while paying an astronomical fee.

The primary speculation revolves around the low entropy (which can also be described as instability) of the compromised wallet. This essentially means that the wallet’s randomness generation may be flawed, making it vulnerable to hacking attempts, and the sender may inflate the transaction fee to speed up the transaction process.

Subsequently, problems related to rapid wage increases using the Fee Exchange (RBF) also attract attention. It is unclear why this transaction was quickly adjusted with such a high fee. Speculation suggests the possibility of multiple attackers competing to steal funds, leading to an inflated fee strategy as a deterrent or barrier to competitors or potential victims.

The complexity of this situation is further increased by conflicting claims and signatures. While “@83_5BTC” claims ownership over the transaction, suspicions arise from the possibility that the message was signed by the attacker or another party who may have accessed the weak entropy of the compromised wallet.

The transaction was accepted by AntPool at block 818,087 and generated significant gains for the company. There remains uncertainty as to whether AntPool will consider a refund. If they choose to do this, verifying the victim’s identity will become a very important factor and will likely require different authentication methods.


source site-6