Someone just paid 83BTC for transaction fee,

[tvplus006]

...And here is the message signed from the same address posted by the same twitter account. ..

We cannot determine exactly who signed the message. It could be both the owner of the wallet and a hacker who hacked the account and, accordingly, has access to this wallet to sign the message. But of course, it is more likely that the wallet was hacked and a high commission was paid in order for the stolen bitcoins to be instantly transferred to the fraudster's wallet.

[Stalker22]

Someone claimed that the wallet which the transaction in question was made from had been hacked.
~

Yes. Looks like this really was a hack job. 

Someone noticed another interesting detail - the transaction fee taken was precisely 60% of the total transferred.  So it seems some pre-programmed script was just waiting for any incoming deposits to automatically siphon off everything to another wallet.  Sure, the hacker made off with 55 BTC, but because of his stupidity he was left without a potentially much bigger loot.


https://twitter.com/mononautical/status/1729045556662792283

[Porfirii]

-snip-

The transaction was first broadcasted with a fee of 70 bitcoins and then later was replaced with that of 83 bitcoin as fees.

-snip-

Wow! and that's what I call to be in a hurry he even RBFed the transaction, just in case it wasn't getting into the next block.

Well, jokes apart, we are seeing many cases like this one in the recent past. I guess that, as more and more actors enter in play, chances for this kind of things to happen also increase. I hope that, if he spent such an awesome capital that easy (or addressed by hackers if that's what eventually happened) is because he has many more Bitcoins, because nobody deserves to be insta-ruined like that.

[Mpamaegbu]

I heard a few cases like this which is a very costly mistake, I didn't know if this is a newbie or not.
AFAIK, wallets that don't support RBF are those custodial wallets and I found out that the transaction mistakenly put a huge fee doesn't support RBF.

You're right. I've experienced this first hand and it still hurts me till date. Mine was $20 at a time when I felt I had set it at something around $2. I can't be too sure if it was the app that reverted it to that high or me who didn't crosscheck properly. Yes, I used a closed wallet and there wasn't an option of RBF. So, I couldn't do anything once I noticed my error immediately I had triggered the transaction. It's crazy how we get to find out our mistake once we press the trigger. I just had to quietly rue my loss. Anyway, I hope the over 80btc transaction fee was also done in error and hopefully the antpool that processed it will be able to return the excess to the originating wallet.

[BlackHatCoiner]

But from an AML/CFT perspective, you are basically turning "dirty" money into a seemingly legitimate and clean financial transaction (revenue generated from a business activity).

How's a 83 BTC transaction fee considered "dirty"? And why's that and not my 5000 sat fee? What is the difference?

Is it just me or is this taint shit escalating rapidly into everything? Criminal money? Tainted. Mixed with criminal money? Tainted. Mixed in general with other people's money? Tainted. Do the money originate from a non-regulated exchange? Tainted. Suspicion that the transaction fee was to launder money? Tainted.

What the hell. Stop buying taint.

[Stalker22]

What the hell. Stop buying taint.

I dont, but if you deal with centralized services and try to deposit "tainted" coins you might run into a bunch of issues. Unfortunately, thats the world we live in now.

~

Read a few posts before replying in the thread. It has already been confirmed that this was a hack and not a sender error.

Someone claimed that the wallet which the transaction in question was made from had been hacked.


https://twitter.com/83_5BTC/status/1727996658758058120


And here is the message signed from the same address posted by the same twitter account.


https://twitter.com/83_5BTC/status/1728873072349069352

[EL MOHA]

You're right. I've experienced this first hand and it still hurts me till date. Mine was $20 at a time when I felt I had set it at something around $2. I can't be too sure if it was the app that reverted it to that high or me who didn't crosscheck properly. Yes, I used a closed wallet and there wasn't an option of RBF. So, I couldn't do anything once I noticed my error immediately I had triggered the transaction. It's crazy how we get to find out our mistake once we press the trigger. I just had to quietly rue my loss. Anyway, I hope the over 80btc transaction fee was also done in error and hopefully the antpool that processed it will be able to return the excess to the originating wallet.

The sad part is the even if you make such mistake and you immediately notice it, you can’t be able to revert the decision because even the RBF option only allow one to increase the fee I don’t think decreasing the fee will actually work. Probably the the wallet wouldn’t allow it to progress since the RBF is basically just replacing that transaction with a new one with higher fee. So one needs to be careful setting this fees

Also with the information there by hosseinimr93 which indicates that the wallet might be hacked I would suggest Antpool to keep the excess than handing it over to the scammer

[Cricktor]

It seems the owner's cold wallet was rather a hot one when it could be swept by a hacker immediately as the owner claimed. I probably won't ever understand why there are people who fiddle around with such huge amounts of BTCBTCBTC and likely have infected systems or use some very unsafe or even completely malicious tools to create what they think is a cold wallet. This is insane beyond comprehension.

A decent hardware wallet, properly used, could've prevented this (check addresses and transaction details to be signed carefully and solely on the independent display of your hardware wallet; sign a transaction with your hardware wallet only when you have fully checked every detail of it).

[Jawhead999]

If I were the hacker I would send all of the coins to my address and not donate it to the miner who mine the block, sorry I didn't mean to say I'm a bad guy (or maybe yes since I can't prove it), but I feel like why the black hat want to hack the wallet and send the coins if he don't have any intention to steal it.

I probably won't ever understand why there are people who fiddle around with such huge amounts of BTCBTCBTC and likely have infected systems or use some very unsafe or even completely malicious tools to create what they think is a cold wallet.

Because people think when they not get hacked or suffer something bad, they think they've done it properly and think their wallet are safe.

[NotATether]

New information:

The alleged victim, @83_5BTC, revealed that after transferring 139 BTC to a new cold wallet, the funds were immediately swept to another wallet by the attackers. The transaction split the sum, sending 55.77 BTC to the hackers’ wallet, while the rest, a staggering 83.65 BTC, was paid as a transaction fee. This incident surpasses the previous high-fee record of 19.8 BTC.

Mononaut, the anonymous operator behind the mempool.space bitcoin explorer, weighed in on the incident. He suggested that “the most likely explanation is that the wallet was generated from bad entropy.” In layman’s terms, this means the wallet’s security was compromised due to weak randomization in its creation process. Mononaut’s insight provides a crucial understanding of the technical flaw that may have led to this unfortunate event. source

So apparently, the 83.5 BTC transaction fee was a programming error (albeit a part of a malware that swept the person's wallet, so I don't think anyone will necessarily feel bad for the hacker).

It makes me wonder how can people screw up their code this badly to spend a large amount of bitcoin on fees, though.

[TravelMug]

New information:

The alleged victim, @83_5BTC, revealed that after transferring 139 BTC to a new cold wallet, the funds were immediately swept to another wallet by the attackers. The transaction split the sum, sending 55.77 BTC to the hackers’ wallet, while the rest, a staggering 83.65 BTC, was paid as a transaction fee. This incident surpasses the previous high-fee record of 19.8 BTC.

Mononaut, the anonymous operator behind the mempool.space bitcoin explorer, weighed in on the incident. He suggested that “the most likely explanation is that the wallet was generated from bad entropy.” In layman’s terms, this means the wallet’s security was compromised due to weak randomization in its creation process. Mononaut’s insight provides a crucial understanding of the technical flaw that may have led to this unfortunate event. source

So apparently, the 83.5 BTC transaction fee was a programming error (albeit a part of a malware that swept the person's wallet, so I don't think anyone will necessarily feel bad for the hacker).

It makes me wonder how can people screw up their code this badly to spend a large amount of bitcoin on fees, though.

It could be that case or maybe the hackers was in a hurry to get it confirmed, and so he doesn't care about how much he will be paying for the fees, it's a huge hack for him and so he needed to clear this one out very fast and get that bitcoin in his own wallet that he has total control. As for the individual that has been hack, yeah, he created his own mnemonic phrase or at least add some (that's one I understand it), unfortunately it was not strong enough as the hackers was able to break it and steal everything from him.

[cryptodude]

A transaction fee of 83 BTC (Bitcoin) is an extraordinarily high amount and raise eyebrow within the cryptocurrency community . Such an exorbitant fee could be the result of a mistake or a technical error, commonly referred to as a "fat-finger error," where the user accidentally inputs an incorrect value..