SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Oops,-the-honest-people-are-in-a-minority-again dept.
A malicious miner successfully executed a double spend attack on the Bitcoin Gold network last week, making BTG at least the third altcoin to succumb to a network attack during that timespan.
[...] To execute the attack, the miner acquired at least 51 percent of the network's total hashpower, which provided them with temporary control of the blockchain. Obtaining this much hashpower is incredibly expensive — even on a smaller network like bitcoin gold — but it can be monetized by using it in tandem with a double spend attack.
After gaining control of the network, the attacker began depositing BTG at cryptocurrency exchanges while also attempting to send those same coins to a wallet under their control. Ordinarily, the blockchain would resolve this by including only the first transaction in the block, but the attacker was able to reverse transactions since they had majority control of the network.
Consequently, they were able to deposit funds on exchanges and quickly withdraw them again, after which they reversed the initial transaction so that they could send the coins they had originally deposited to another wallet.
A bitcoin gold address implicated in the attack has received more than 388,200 BTG since May 16 (mostly from transactions it sent to itself). Assuming all of those transactions were associated with the double spend exploit, the attacker could have stolen as much as $18.6 million worth of funds from exchanges.
The last transaction was sent on May 18, but the attacker could theoretically attempt to resume it if they still have access to enough hashpower to gain control of the blockchain.
Bitcoin gold's developers advised exchanges to address the attack by increasing the number of confirmations required before they credit deposits to customer accounts. Blockchain data indicates that the attacker successfully reversed transactions as far back as 22 blocks, leading developers to advise raising confirmation requirements to 50 blocks.
Bitcoin Gold appears to use a standard ~10 min block rate so the new recommendation is for exchanges to hold funds for ~8 hours before clearing them.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @11:55AM (7 children)
Exactly: Shenanigans. Illegal shenanigans if that's what they're doing: https://www.pymnts.com/cryptocurrency/2018/bitcoin-criminal-probe-regulation/ [pymnts.com]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 25 2018, @12:00PM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @01:13PM (5 children)
From the linked article: spoofing and wash trading are illegal.
If individuals or groups are trading XRP with themselves in order to manipulate the market price up or down, that's wash trading, and illegal.
Like most bad laws it's difficult to prove: intent or collusion or manipulation of market price, but that doesn't change the illegal status, and in every market manipulation there are damaged parties who either paid more or received less than they would have without the manipulation (or, as you say: muscling).
What really makes it illegal is somebody's willingness to pursue it in a court of law coupled with a victory - then it becomes case law, of which there is quite a bit existing for wash trading. The legal system in its current form isn't one I love, but it is the one we have.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 26 2018, @03:26AM (4 children)
And that has what to do with the managers of the currency?
Except when it's not illegal. For example, stock buybacks aren't illegal.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 26 2018, @11:59AM (3 children)
Unless you've sold stock to a colluding party, and then buy it back in a short time frame, that becomes an illegal wash.
What's colluding? What's short? Yeah, the law sucks, but it's the law.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 26 2018, @09:29PM (2 children)
So not always illegal as I already noted.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday May 26 2018, @09:54PM (1 child)
And f-ing hard to prove in court, which is why all the chat room pump and dumps of the 2000 dot-com bust got away with their shenanigans.
Illegal if you can bring a case and make it stick. Cybercurrency traders are an order of magnitude bolder than the chat roomers from ~20 years ago, I'm sure there's available records all over the internet that would make a case for wash sales and even spoofing (I think one guy is actually using Spoofer as his pseudonym...) Now, does anybody care enough to bring the case? We will see.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 27 2018, @12:55AM