Bithumb Bitcoin Gold 51% Attack
Notice: This page is a freshly imported case study from the original repository. The original content was in a different format, and may not have relevant information for all sections. Please help restructure the content by moving information from the 'About' and 'General Prevention' sections to other sections, and add any missing information or sources you can find. If you are new here, please read General Tutorial on Wikis or Anatomy of a Case Study for help getting started.
Notice: This page contains sources which are not attributed to any text. The unattributed sources follow the initial description. Please assist by visiting each source, reviewing the content, and placing that reference next to any text it can be used to support. Feel free to add any information that you come across which isn't present already. Sources which don't contain any relevant information can be removed. Broken links can be replaced with versions from the Internet Archive. See General Tutorial on Wikis, Anatomy of a Case Study, and/or Citing Your Sources Guide for additional information. Thanks for your help!
In 2018, a string of Bitcoin Gold 51% attacks targeted multiple platforms including Bithumb. In response to these attacks, the block confirmation times were increased.
This exchange or platform is based in South Korea, or the incident targeted people primarily in South Korea.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
About Bithumb
"Bithumb is a South Korean cryptocurrency exchange. Founded in 2014, Bithumb Korea is the most influential digital currency exchange in the country, having 8 million registered users, 1M mobile app users and a current cumulative transaction volume has exceeded 1 trillion US dollars."
"Bitcoin Gold was the second fork of Bitcoin when it went live in November 2017 (amidst a few technical issues that occurred pre-launch). Albeit being marketed as a cryptocurrency supporting decentralized mining through an ASIC-resistant mining algorithm, critics of the cryptocurrency called it a “cash grab.” Yet, most bitcoin holders were given free BCG coins relative to their holdings of Bitcoin, so most welcomed the “free money.”"
"In a May 11th blog post, the Bitcoin Gold team made Bitcoin Gold (BTG) holders aware of attempts to attack the Bitcoin Gold network. Exchanges were also asked to guard against the attack since potential attackers were likely to profit by double spending coins in exchange transactions. The blog post was updated on the 24th of May to announce that a dreaded 51% attack occurred on the network between the 16th and the 19th of May 2018. The attack on Bitcoin Gold also involved rented hashpower from cloud mining services."
"Traders of the coin, established in 2017 through a hard fork of the main Bitcoin (BTC) network, have been tracing the attack since last week."
"Scrutiny of unusual activity on the network has revealed the scheme, in which "double spending" attacks have been launched against cryptocurrency exchanges trading the virtual currency."
"A Bitcoin Gold wallet linked to the double spend scheme has received over 388,000 BTG, which is currently worth about $18 million, according to data from CryptoCompare. Most of the coins have now been transferred to various other addresses and only about 13,000 BTG are left in it."
"Bitcoin Gold—already one of the worst performing cryptocurrencies in 2018—faced even more problems after the attack. Bittrex delisted BTG following the BTG team’s refusal to pay compensation of 12,372 BTG. Exchanges including Bittrex, Binance, Bithumb, Bitinka, and Bitfinex lost an estimated $18 million worth of coins due to the double spend attack. Bittrex blamed the Bitcoin Gold team for negligence and demanded compensation in order to keep the cryptocurrency listed."
"In response, the Bitcoin Gold team stated that 51% attacks are a known risk in the ecosystem. They added that the BTG organization was not responsible for the attack since it was not caused by flaws in the Bitcoin Gold blockchain or code. Additionally, the team cited warnings it gave prior to the attack as well as the assistance it gave exchanges for defending themselves."
"The BTG team also claimed that the network upgrade carried out in July 2018 will reduce the likelihood of another attack on the network. Bittrex ended up delisting the coin, along with several others. Bitcoin Gold still survived as the 27th most capitalized coins on CoinMarketCap."
This exchange or platform is based in South Korea, or the incident targeted people primarily in South Korea.
The background of the exchange platform, service, or individuals involved, as it would have been seen or understood at the time of the events.
Include:
- Known history of when and how the service was started.
- What problems does the company or service claim to solve?
- What marketing materials were used by the firm or business?
- Audits performed, and excerpts that may have been included.
- Business registration documents shown (fake or legitimate).
- How were people recruited to participate?
- Public warnings and announcements prior to the event.
Don't Include:
- Any wording which directly states or implies that the business is/was illegitimate, or that a vulnerability existed.
- Anything that wasn't reasonably knowable at the time of the event.
There could be more than one section here. If the same platform is involved with multiple incidents, then it can be linked to a main article page.
The Reality
This sections is included if a case involved deception or information that was unknown at the time. Examples include:
- When the service was actually started (if different than the "official story").
- Who actually ran a service and their own personal history.
- How the service was structured behind the scenes. (For example, there was no "trading bot".)
- Details of what audits reported and how vulnerabilities were missed during auditing.
What Happened
The specific events of the loss and how it came about. What actually happened to cause the loss and some of the events leading up to it.
Date | Event | Description |
---|---|---|
May 11th, 2018 | Main Event | Expand this into a brief description of what happened and the impact. If multiple lines are necessary, add them here. |
Technical Details
This section includes specific detailed technical analysis of any security breaches which happened. What specific software vulnerabilities contributed to the problem and how were they exploited?
Total Amount Lost
The total amount lost is unknown.
How much was lost and how was it calculated? If there are conflicting reports, which are accurate and where does the discrepancy lie?
Immediate Reactions
How did the various parties involved (firm, platform, management, and/or affected individual(s)) deal with the events? Were services shut down? Were announcements made? Were groups formed?
Ultimate Outcome
What was the end result? Was any investigation done? Were any individuals prosecuted? Was there a lawsuit? Was any tracing done?
Total Amount Recovered
There do not appear to have been any funds recovered in this case.
What funds were recovered? What funds were reimbursed for those affected users?
Ongoing Developments
What parts of this case are still remaining to be concluded?
General Prevention Policies
51% attacks can be prevented through a mix of increased block confirmation times and setting checkpoints to prevent large-scale rollbacks. This means the exchange will not credit deposited funds, or nodes will be prevented from accepting the attacking chain.
Individual Prevention Policies
No specific policies for individual prevention have yet been identified in this case.
For the full list of how to protect your funds as an individual, check our Prevention Policies for Individuals guide.
Platform Prevention Policies
Policies for platforms to take to prevent this situation have not yet been selected in this case.
For the full list of how to protect your funds as a financial service, check our Prevention Policies for Platforms guide.
Regulatory Prevention Policies
No specific regulatory policies have yet been identified in this case.
For the full list of regulatory policies that can prevent loss, check our Prevention Policies for Regulators guide.
References
- ↑ Five most prolific 51% attacks in crypto: Verge, Ethereum Classic, Bitcoin Gold, Feathercoin, Vertcoin | CryptoSlate (Sep 29, 2021)
- ↑ https://en.bithumb.com/ (Oct 19, 2021)
- ↑ Is The Acquisition Of the Bithub Exchange In Danger? | Tokeneo (Oct 19, 2021)
- ↑ Bithumb: Hackers 'rob crypto-exchange of $32m' - BBC News (Feb 23, 2020)
- ↑ Bitcoin Gold suffers double spend attacks, $17.5 million lost | ZDNet (Nov 9, 2021)
- ↑ Double Spend Attacks on Exchanges - #24 by MentalNomad - Announcements and Site Feedback - The BTG Community Forum (Nov 9, 2021)
- ↑ Bitcoin Gold Hit With 51% and Double Spend Attacks, $18 Million Stolen | Cryptoglobe (Nov 9, 2021)
- ↑ Bithumb - Wikipedia (Nov 10, 2021)
- ↑ Double Spend Attacks on Exchanges - Announcements and Site Feedback - The BTG Community Forum (Apr 29, 2022)
- ↑ Korean Self-regulatory Crypto Industry Body Under Question After 12 Crypto Exchanges Approved | YOUniversityTV (May 8, 2022)