【Watch Believer Online】
Privacy-oriented cryptocurrency Verge (symbol: XVG) was apparently hacked Wednesday,Watch Believer Online with the attacker making off with around 250,000 coins with a value of roughly $15,000 (though some reports go as high as $1 million).
Compared to some recent crypto-related hacks, this attack was particularly nasty as it compromised the integrity of Verge's blockchain.
SEE ALSO: Cryptocurrency exchange puts $250,000 bounty on hackersThe attack was discovered by ocminer, a poster on Bitcointalk forums (via Bitcoin.com), on Wednesday afternoon. According to him, a hacker used "several bugs" in Verge's code to mine an extraordinarily large number of new blocks in Verge's blockchain, thus rewarding himself with a lot of Verge coins.
Ocminer and several media outlets called this a "51% attack," which is frightening as this type of attack is theoretically possible on other blockchains which rely on a proof-of-work (PoW) validation mechanism, including Bitcoin and Ethereum.
But even though this attacker technically managed to capture the majority of mining power on Verge's network, this type of attack wouldn't work on Bitcoin.
In plain terms: In PoW-based cryptocurrency systems, miners are people who use computing power to validate the transactions on the network and are awarded in new coins. These systems are typically quite robust, but if any one miner (or mining pool) should capture the majority (hence the 51%) of the network's mining power, then they can do all sorts of bad things on the network, including spending coins that were already spent (this is called doublespending).
In Verge's particular case, it's a little more nuanced. Verge uses five different cryptographic algorithms for mining, switching to a new one for every block, but the attacker figured out a way to fake timestamps of his blocks and mined them all with one algorithm. In this way, he was able to capture the majority of the network's mining power with far less computing power than he'd normally need.
Nevertheless, the attack is serious as it requires a hard fork (cryptocurrency lingo for a very big upgrade that leaves the old blockchain behind and requires all participants to switch to new software) to exclude the blocks the attacker had mined.
Verge's official Twitter account tried to downplay the severity of the attack by calling it a "small hash attack" that's been "cleared up now."
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
But Reddit and some experts seem to disagree.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
And a poster on the Bitcointalk forums called IDCToken, who claims he's responsible for the attack, said there are two more exploits in the Verge's code that could be used to perform a similar hack.
Verge's price fell 14.6% to $0.0547 at the time of writing according to CoinMarketCap.
The attack on Verge follows a reported 51% attack on another cryptocurrency, Electroneum, though that one didn't appear to result in much damage.
These attacks are notable as they show that even a seemingly foolproof PoW system can be tricked. Ethereum has already had one hack of large magnitude in its history while Bitcoin has mostly stood the test of time in its nine years of existence, but it'd be imprudent to completely brush off the possibility of this happening to any cryptocurrency, even the most thoroughly tested one.
Disclosure: The author of this article owns, or has recently owned, a number of cryptocurrencies, including BTC and ETH.
Featured Video For You
This bitcoin wallet claims to be hack-proof
Topics Bitcoin Cybersecurity Cryptocurrency
Search
Categories
Latest Posts
Today's Hurdle hints and answers for May 9, 2025
2025-06-26 04:47Francisco Goldman, Mexico City by Matteo Pericoli
2025-06-26 04:42Apple bans ChatGPT use by employees, report says
2025-06-26 04:17'Fast X' ending explainer: What to expect from 'Fast and Furious 11'
2025-06-26 03:58Best headphones deal: Save up to 51% on Beats at Amazon
2025-06-26 03:21Popular Posts
The Making of Plimpton! by Tom Bean and Luke Poling
2025-06-26 04:13Tote Contest: Now Extended! by The Paris Review
2025-06-26 04:13No Time for a Negative Peace
2025-06-26 03:35Featured Posts
Robin Triumphant
2025-06-26 04:21'Fast X' ending explainer: What to expect from 'Fast and Furious 11'
2025-06-26 03:395 ChatGPT plugins that do what they promise
2025-06-26 03:36Tuesday: Me by Witold Gombrowicz
2025-06-26 03:36The Sound and the “Furious”
2025-06-26 02:54Popular Articles
Bomb Envy
2025-06-26 04:44Hulu deepfaked Damian Lillard into its own TV commercial
2025-06-26 04:42Harvard and Class by Misha Glouberman
2025-06-26 04:30Disaster in the Ninth by Christopher Cox
2025-06-26 04:06Exceptionally rare radio sources detected in the distant universe
2025-06-26 03:17Newsletter
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates.
Comments (813)
Life Information Network
Best portable power station deal: Save 44% on the Jackery Explorer 100 v2
2025-06-26 05:02Creation Information Network
‘Master Gardener’ review: Paul Schrader gives romance a chance
2025-06-26 04:56Creation Information Network
Sad Young Literary Men: The Pleasures of Oslo, August 31st by Elisabeth Donnelly
2025-06-26 04:47Co-creation Information Network
The 15 best tweets of the week, including some calamari
2025-06-26 03:58Sharing Information Network
Your 'wrong person' texts may be linked to Myanmar warlord
2025-06-26 03:14