Hacker News Reader

Comment by qqii | Hacker News Reader

Personally I found this article much clearer than the paper: https://www.palkeo.com/en/projets/ethereum/bzx.html

You can actually follow the money yourself:

https://etherscan.io/address/0x148426fdc4c8a51b96b4bed827907... https://etherscan.io/address/0xb8C6Ad5fE7CB6cC72F2C4196dca11...

It looks like neither attacker was able to cash out, but the seccond attacker is moving his funds around even to this day.

View on HN

Ok, we've changed the URL to that from https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.03810. Thanks!

I disagree with your choice to change the URL. The paper is far more comprehensive in its analysis.

Ok, I've pinned a link to the paper as the top comment so most people will see both.

That reads like an analysis of some big event in Eve Online.

Fascinating but I obviously have no understanding of either.

Smart contracts are basically code that can execute and directly interact with cryptocurrency and crypto-tokens. This code is executed atomically; every block; and the entire namespace of Ethereum is callable allowing you to pull together any other contracts or platforms.

> It looks like neither attacker was able to cash out,

What makes you say that?

If they wanted to, they could simply send the funds back to Tornado Cash, which is basically Zcash-running-on-Ethereum-EVM. The seed funds to run the attack came out of Tornado Cash. It's liquid enough to handle a deposit this size, although it probably wasn't liquid enough back in May.

Thank you this is a much better place to read about the attack and the bugs in the contracts which allowed it to be pulled off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com