
I run on Bitcoin Standard Time RIP Account 2016-2024 all history del started over with same handle 2025 X backup @count_bitcoin you can find me on Nostr
Joined January 2025
- Tweets4.3K
- Following772
- Followers345
- Likes6.3K
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
THE BLOCK: Brazilian crypto exchange Mercado Bitcoin confirmed a security incident and temporarily suspended deposits and withdrawals, saying customers were unaffected.
Blockchain security firm Hypernative earlier flagged more than $40 million in suspicious transfers across multiple networks, according to local outlet BitNotícias.
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
Not a drill: shut down your BTCPay Server if you have a hot wallet.
Appreciate the reposts 🙏
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
🚨 We are receiving reports of hot wallets on BTCPay Servers being swept by unauthorized attackers.
If you're running an instance, please shut it down (./btcpay-down.sh) until we complete the investigation.
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
I made a game where you surf the Bitcoin chart.
Tap to pump. Don't get rugged.
How far can you ride the Bitcoin chart? 🚀
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
Bitcoin Tonight - 041 Bear Market Hello? nitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1wxWjlELX…
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
This 5 word prompt gives the details of the vulnerability which was exploited today to steal 4000 BTC ($320M) from the liquid network (on a specific elements commit with Fable 5).
Liquid hack explained.
Liquid has confidential transactions that hide the amounts for improved privacy. A bug in how these transactions are validated caused inflation of Liquid BTC (L-BTC) and allowed hackers to empty the entire side chain.
Liquid nodes don't see the amounts of a confidential transaction, so to make sure that the transaction is still valid and doesn't cause inflation nodes check something called a balance proof and a range proof.
The balance proof establish that sum of the input amounts equal the output amounts, i.e., that "x L-BTC going in and x L-BTC going out". But there's a catch. Only relying on a balance proof isn't enough. You also need the range proof.
The range proof establishes that a hidden output amount falls within a positive range. That means a valid output must be at least 1 L-sat and at most 2^64 − 1 L-sats. Range proofs make sure that you can't mint "negative L-BTC".
Why is this even necessary? Remember, the amounts are hidden and a hidden negative amount would allow extra positive outputs to balance against it. Without a range proof, a transaction could say "I've put 1 L-BTC in, and I'm taking two outputs out: one with 4000 L-BTC and one with -3999 L-BTC)."
This is going to cause a disaster in a little bit.
Once the balance proof, the range proof, and other validations pass, a transaction is regarded as valid and can pass consensus. However, because especially the range proof is computationally expensive, Liquid nodes cache the result of a successful range proof in memory. Essentially, the node remembers "I saw this range proof before and it was valid, all good!".
In order to recognize the same range proof later on, you need to assign a label to it. This is called a cache key. This cache key is the actual cause of the bug.
The way this cache key was constructed allowed two different transactions to collide on their cache key. Essentially, one valid transaction (1 L-BTC in, 1 L-BTC out) had the same cache key as an invalid transaction (1 L-BTC in, 4000 L-BTC out).
Here's the hack: the attackers submitted the valid transaction (1 L-BTC in, 1 L-BTC out) first. Liquid nodes verified this transaction successfully, created a cache key called REKT and stored it in their cache. Then the attackers carefully crafted a second invalid transaction with (1 L-BTC in, 4000 L-BTC out) that created the same cache key REKT.
Instead of validating the second transaction and realizing that it printed money out of thin air, Liquid nodes found it in their cache and said "hey I saw this transaction before, everything is fine" and that caused the inflation.
The attackers then took their 4000 L-BTC and withdrew 4000 BTC onto the Bitcoin base chain.
Note: I might have gotten some details wrong, and I'm aware that I simplified quite a bit. I wrote this post to help people understand what happened. Please feel free to correct me in the comments or add more details below.
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
1/ ~4,000 BTC left Blockstream's Liquid federation wallet today with a note: "we are whitehats. contact us on chain."
Everyone is calling it a drained bridge. We read the chain.
The Bitcoin side is clean. The problem is on Liquid and yet another bridge debacle. 🧵
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
We are aware of a security incident on @Liquid_BTC. Purported white-hat hackers have withdrawn ~4,000 BTC (~$320 million) from the Liquid Federation wallet. The @Blockstream team is working on contacting them on-chain with a signed message.
What we know so far is that the funds were withdrawn via the SideSwap PAK (Peg-out Authorization Key), but that key was not compromised, nor were any others.
Exchanges have been notified and have already paused (or will pause) LBTC deposits and withdrawals. Other Liquid assets such as USDT, DePix, and RWAs are unaffected by this security incident.
Bridge nodes have been temporarily disabled, so no new transactions can be submitted to the network. Effectively, the Liquid sidechain is paused until this issue is resolved.
Liquid wallets will be impacted, and we're sorry for any inconvenience. Federation members are actively working on resolving this so we can restore normal network activity.
You can monitor the situation via @mempool's liquid.network site below:
mempool.space/address/bc1qdl…
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
Bitcoin is on a Meme Tour, It visited 69K, 67K and now 58K
It reached it's destination, and it will chill in the area for awhile
But, eventually the Tour Bus will turn around start heading back home
Last week’s Coldcard incident is a reminder of something the industry underrates: randomness is the foundation of self-custody. If it's weak, everything built on top of it is too.
Here’s what happened, and why Ledger devices are unaffected.
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
To build secure systems you must be humble. If you do not deeply internalize your own fallibility you will not go that extra mile to ask yourself "what can I do to make sure this thing is still secure even if I'm dumb and made mistakes?".
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
👇
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
I am urging engineers who are in the Bitcoin ecosystem, use @OpenRouter or @opencode to use @Kimi_Moonshot K3 on any software you run which interacts with bitcoin in any way internally and any public repos you use.
Other models CAN find issues, but K3 will one shot full vulnerability reports to get an extra set of eyes for security checks.
Some of it will be slop/overstated/wrong, but I've been scanning open source repos and finding things I'll be passing along to maintainers.
Kimi K3 came out as open weights on Monday, and I don't think that is a coincidence as it relates to the COLDCARD issues unfolding.
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
NUNCHUK ON COLDCARD VULNERABILITY
Some Nunchuk platform keys were generated with a Coldcard Mk4, but the company says those keys are never used directly.
Instead, it derives separate keys through custom logic, making them less susceptible to lookup-table attacks based on compromised Coldcard seeds.
Nunchuk adds that, given enough time, it assumes attackers could eventually include those derived keys as well.
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
There is no group of people more dramatic than bitcoiners on Twitter.
Self custody is just fine. One company fucked it.
Give it a month and it’s like it never happened.
👻Spooky 👻 Unit of a Count retweeted
Replying to @HodlMagoo
Bros here for NGU with no curiosity to futher technical understanding how to secure the bitcoin


























