Researchers at Gate.io have officially confirmed that a 51% attack on the ETC (Ethereum Classic) network has taken place. The researchers also released an evaluation of ETC-related transactions that took place during the assault on the cryptocurrency exchange platform.
Seven distinct rollback trades were identified, four of which were supposedly performed by the 51 percent attacker, according to the analysis. During the assault a maximum of 54,200 ETCs were transferred. That’s about $271,500. Gate.io indicated that on 7 January 2019, the attack spanned four hours from 0:40 UTC to 4:20 UTC.
Throughout that time, trades on the ETC Blockchain were regularly confirmed and then nullified after the rollback. Gate.io managed to give the specifics of the three Ethereum Classic addresses that the intruder was believed to be using. The company also released a statement that it was able to counter the transactions of the hacker and published the transaction details for a manual examination.
Sadly, all exchanges were valid and officially confirmed in the Blockchain as well. The company stated that the investigator carried out all the transfers that resulted in the loss of roughly 40,000 ETC during the siege. The company said that all customers would be compensated for the financial losses they endured during the assault.
It also instructed other cryptocurrency exchanges to blacklist all transfers resulting from addresses discovered by Gate.io researchers a being utilized the hacker. Gate.io said that its Ethereum Classic transaction number had increased significantly to 500 and a stronger 51% attack detection framework had also been introduced.
Many major cryptocurrency exchanges, such as Coinbase, bitFlyer, Poloniex and Coincheck, had indeed temporarily halted Ethereum Classic withdrawals and deposits on 5 January. Coinbase is the only one to report suspicious activity on the Blockchain of the ETC, underlining significantly increased hash rates, indicating a possible 51% attack.
The crypto-exchange also released its observations that indicate the occurrence of double spending and chain reorganizations (reorgs). The Ethereum Classic development team initially rejected the occurrence of a 51 percent attack and argued that there were no double spends or reorganizations on their network.
The team suggested that the suspicious activity was probably due to “selfish mining” and criticized the mining hardware manufacturer Linzhi for trialling their new ETC Blockchain 1.400/Mh ethash mining equipment. Linzhi promptly issued a definitive statement that their products would never be tested on a live network.
