There's some confusion about what, exactly, was exploited here. I've seen claims that this was a long-standing bug, exploited after the "fix" was pushed to the open source repo but before that fix could be rolled out in production. That does not appear to be true. Instead, it seems that the fix *was* deployed, but inadvertently introduced a new bug which was subsequently exploited. Most of the network was still running official releases, none of which contain the new bug. Those nodes correctly rejected the block containing the exploit and stalled at height 4050335. The timeline is roughly as follows: • 2016-07-12: Range proof caching added • 2017-11-08: Range proofs extended to support assets • 2019-03-19: Range proof cache key "simplified", dropping asset & script fields. introduces Bug A. • 2026-09-01: Bug A "fixed" by extending cache key to include asset + script. introduces Bug B. • 2026-09-06: Bug B exploited, reserves drained, chain split. The original "Bug A" allows some limited cache poisoning because the cache key doesn't commit to the asset and script, allowing a cached result for a range proof for one asset to be applied to a different asset or context. Exploiting this in practice looks quite difficult, since the amount must match the primer and the proof must be genuine. The 2026 "fix" added those missing fields to the cache key, producing a format like: "proof | amount | asset | scriptpubkey" But this unfortunately made the key easier to manipulate and exploit: The four fields are concatenated without separators or length indicators. Since both the proof and the scriptpubkey are variable length, an attacker can stretch the proof and shrink the script to produce the exact same cache key from different proofs, amounts, assets and scripts. This lets an attacker smuggle arbitrary confidential output amounts and junk proofs past the range proof checker without proper validation, which breaks the guarantees that prevent hidden inflation. On-chain evidence suggests that this second bug is what was exploited: Two primer transactions each created an op_return with carefully constructed scriptpubkey and valid range proof for a (presumably) zero value output. This produced a cache key like: " | | | OP_RETURN OP_RETURN" The exploit transaction then created a large negative op_return output with an invalid range proof: The invalid proof is padded with bytes corresponding to the primer's valid amount and asset fields, aligning the actual amount and asset fields with the same bytes from the primer's opreturn payload: " OP_RETURN | | | OP_RETURN" The exploit transaction could then include a second output crediting the attacker with a large positive value, balanced out by the fake negative amount. Because the success was already cached, the invalid proof was never actually checked and the transaction was accepted as valid by nodes running versions of the software vulnerable to bug B. Although the amounts are blinded, this is the only output with an invalid range proof anywhere in the peg-out's recent ancestry, so this must be where the inflated coins were created. And since the padding only produces a cacheable key under the new format, it must have been the newer bug that was exploited.

EIP-8198 introduces infra for variable slot timing, enabling Ethereum to gradually shorten slots as bottlenecks are better understood. We published our take on it, supporting the move toward shorter slots while arguing that geo incentives should remain part of the evaluation 👇

There has been a lot of attack vs. defense of Germany and German bureaucracy for start-ups following @patrickc's post on the matter. So let me give you a list of the FKIN insanity I faced after acquiring a German company - list is not exhaustive. In random order: * 16hs live read at the notary of financing documents * Embassy-apostilled wet signature to change address * Officer to monitor working hours of (remote) workers * Notarized Etherscan-printout to validate Ethereum tx * Notary to escrow a Safe multisig (lol again) * PostIndent on everything that moves (in German) * Purchase of nominal share price only in EUR * Pre-study for foreign investing in strategic (any) assets * BONUS: try to do performance management in GER Fun fact on (1): after 16hs reading financing docs, at 11.30 PM, the notary informed us that if we wouldn't have finished by midnight they would have had to change the date on the contracts and re-read them again from scratch. What I have seen in Germany blew my mind. And to anyone complaining of X anti-European spirit, I am European, born and bred, and I still think Europe is *BY FAR* the best place to spend your money. Maybe not the best place to make the money in the first place.

It is so sad. Bitcoin usage was growing exponentially up until 2014ish. And then we collectively told the world we didn't want them using our precious "block space," by keeping the 1 MB limit. We had more demand than we ever hoped for but rather than building out the infrastructure, we pretended that blockchains couldn't scale. Why?

We published a (very!) detailed snapshot of our thinking on Hegotá priorities. You’ll hear me continue to discuss faster ethereum and faster blocks in the coming weeks, we think this is a critical one to get done here.

I will NOT stop screaming about this Only TWO out of the top TEN projects by revenue are investable You are being gifted with money printer machines that put money back into the token and are instead trying to gamble it away Own the house, don't play on it

Had enough of watching you leak your data to Big AI. WISP IS NOW OUT OF THE WAITLIST Private-by-design AI that lets n͟o͟b͟o͟d͟y read, store or train on your prompts: - 100% local agent - Private TEE inference - Masks traceable requests - In app notetaker - New UI link ↓