someone pays 83.65 $BTC ($3,136,058) in transaction fees, overpaying by 120,258

[adaseb]

I’ve been following the thread on his Twitter and about 20 people all asked what software he used to make the wallet or how did he actually create his wallet and he never replied.

So who knows what is going on. Why won’t he answer the question. Currently he is talking with Antpool and perhaps they will be kind and refund the high fee, usually when this happens they are honest and return the funds.

[DaveF]

The issue comes down to we don't know what happened before or next.

If hackers got the private keys then they could just as easily sign the message. Unless he can provide a trail to those coins. i.e. here is my Coinbase account and here is where I sent them to that address. But, they you still have the issue of how compromised was he, do the hackers also have access to his Coinbase account. (Just using coinbase as an example)

I know others have blamed bad entropy. Although possible, it's more likely there are other reasons involved. Being blunt, it's not secure to leave a pile of cash out where people can look in the window of your house and see it. BUT leaving your front door open while it's there is more likely to get it stolen. NOT just because your door is open, but because your door being open will cause people to look over and see the cash. If they had to walk up to a closed front door and look in to see the pile of cash, although still not secure it's a lot more secure.

-Dave

[Phu Juck]

One of the reasons why using CEX will be far preferable than using a DEX. Most of my transactions on Bitget are usually free even as a BGB holder, but carrying out transactions on DEX will charge a lot.

But CEX has soo many downsides as well. Much more downsides in my opinion because Bitcoin is much safer, when it is not stored on CEX.
Why holding Bitcoin is we do it on a CEX?
We need to check transaction fees of course. But it is simple if we know. 

If that Bitcoin had been passed through CEX then it wont happen because there would really be a specific fixed fees which it is really that not possible to have mistakes.

Yes, it won't happen but CEX has soo many downsides as well. Why trade one downside against 10 more downsides because CEX has lots of downsides?
We should try to improve our knowlefge how to avoid transaction fee fail, not trust CEX instead.

[cygan]

now the miner (in this case antpool) has come forward and wants to refund the 83BTC to the victimized user
however, the miner would have to fulfill certain requirements in order to be able to prove the identity of the previous owner of the 83BTC

he would have to use Electrum or Bitcoin Core as a wallet and sign the message 'AntPool' using the pk of the bc1qn3d7vyks0k3fx38xkxazpep8830ttmydwekrnl address and send the output as signed text by e-mail to the support
here is the official announcement:


https://www.antpool.com/newsDetail/457-Announcement%20for%20Claiming%2083BTC%20Gas%20Fee

[FatFork]

now the miner (in this case antpool) has come forward and wants to refund the 83BTC to the victimized user
however, the miner would have to fulfill certain requirements in order to be able to prove the identity of the previous owner of the 83BTC

he would have to use Electrum or Bitcoin Core as a wallet and sign the message 'AntPool' using the pk of the bc1qn3d7vyks0k3fx38xkxazpep8830ttmydwekrnl address and send the output as signed text by e-mail to the support
here is the official announcement:

I saw a message from Antpool on twitter and was kinda surprised at how simple their requirements are for proving ownership of that address.  You'd think they would wanna be more careful, considering the situation.  A hacker/scammer can also sign an address. But I guess they either don't fully get or care that the private key is likely out there with multiple parties who could sign that address if they wanted and  that level of proof doesn't seem nearly good enough to me for this particular case.