Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal

Welcome to your community. We would like you to take a minute and read our newcomers guide.

Sign in to follow this  

Ethereum Classic Chain attacked, Coinbase reveals

Recommended Posts

Coinbase on Monday evening, took to Twitter to reveal that its internal developers on Saturday, noticed a "deep chain recognization" of the Ethereum classic (ETC) blockchain.


In a recent blog post, Mark Nesbitt, security engineer at Coinbase revealed that the Proof of Work system of Ethereum Classic that runs on ETHash algorithm, had fallen victim to an unknown attacker (group) that managed to repeatedly alter blockchain transactions in recent memory.


The first two attacks that took place on Saturday were not harmful enough. Importantly, the second attack was very suspicious, but no red flags were triggered due to the fact that no ETC was double spent. Yet the third attack on Sunday led to Coinbase shutting down its "interaction with the ETC blockchain" as ETC was double spent.


As the speed of this news continued, well known analysts, crypto personalities and researchers on Twitter made comments concerning the situation.


Litecoin creator, Charlie Lee claimed that users should take note of coins that are not dominant in their mining algorithm. Lee made it clear that Ethereum classic has less than 5% of the cummulative ETHash hashrate, which indicates that a Nice Hash-based attack cost just $5000. Over the course of multiple hours, more than $450,000 has fallen into the pocket of unknown attackers, meaning that the attack was probably quite profitable.


Leading blockchain builder, Tim Swanson, bashed PoW blockchains, taking note of the fact that even if hundreds of blocks have passed, this form of consensus cannot guarantee settlement finality.
Stakeholders were advised by Bitfly (the company backing Flypool and Etherchain) to monitor the chain closely and "significantly increase required confirmations (for deposits)."


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this