Just came across something pretty interesting: Last Friday, Arbitrum’s Security Council directly transferred 8,425 ETH and 74 million ARB (about $30 million) out of the Binance hacker’s address, without using the hacker’s private key.
They did it by getting 9 of the 12 members to sign, temporarily replacing the core contract code so the chain treated the transactions as if they’d been sent by the hacker’s address, then changing it back afterward. CoinDesk says this is the second time this has happened this year.
Of course I support catching hackers, but honestly, reading this gave me chills: whoever controls upgrade permissions could theoretically “spend” assets from any address on-chain. That’s also why I think self-custody of Bitcoin is non-negotiable. Just my personal opinion—DYOR.
Do you think this was a reasonable emergency measure, or a slap in the face to decentralization?
#Arbitrum #Binance #Bitcoin
They did it by getting 9 of the 12 members to sign, temporarily replacing the core contract code so the chain treated the transactions as if they’d been sent by the hacker’s address, then changing it back afterward. CoinDesk says this is the second time this has happened this year.
Of course I support catching hackers, but honestly, reading this gave me chills: whoever controls upgrade permissions could theoretically “spend” assets from any address on-chain. That’s also why I think self-custody of Bitcoin is non-negotiable. Just my personal opinion—DYOR.
Do you think this was a reasonable emergency measure, or a slap in the face to decentralization?
#Arbitrum #Binance #Bitcoin
