Antpool Offers Refund for $3 Million BTC Transaction Fee, Sets Verification Deadline for Claimant

Following a claim from an individual asserting they had lost 139 bitcoin in a hack, where 83.65 BTC was utilized as a heightened fee to expedite its mining, Antpool has disclosed its readiness to reimburse the mistakenly paid fee. Antpool specified on November 30 that the individual has a deadline of December 10, 2023, to reclaim the fee from the mining pool.

Deadline Announced by Antpool for Refunding Massive Bitcoin Transaction Fee in Suspected Hack Case

Recently, the cryptocurrency community observed an exceptionally large transaction fee, where 83.65 BTC, valued at over $3 million, was remitted to miners. This transaction, confirmed in block 818,087, was processed by Antpool, today’s most dominant mining pool by hashrate. Following this event, an unidentified user on the social media platform X disclosed that this fee originated from their bitcoin holdings, which were allegedly compromised by hackers.

The user also provided a signature, verifying their claim by signing a message with the private keys of the address. On November 30, Antpool issued a statement regarding the erroneously paid fee, declaring its readiness to refund the owner of the address. “On November 23rd, some user submitted 83 BTC as a gas fee,” Antpool disclosed. “The risk control system of Antpool temporarily froze the fee when packaging the transaction.”

Please contact us before 00:00 (UTC+8) on December 10, 2023 and verify personal identity in the following way. After verification, Antpool will refund the fee.

Confirming the user’s identity could be crucial for Antpool, as there’s a prevailing notion that the hacker might still possess the key, and the alleged victim might actually be the perpetrator. The user is required to sign the address and forward it to Antpool’s email for verification purposes.

What do you think about Antpool detailing that it would refund the massive fee it mined? Share your thoughts and opinions about this subject in the comments section below.

Source

Comments (0)
Add Comment