Monero Attack: Kraken Suspends XMR Deposits Until It Is ‘Safe’

bitcoinistPubblicato 2025-08-18Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-08-18

Introduzione

Crypto exchange Kraken has announced a temporary stoppage of Monero (XMR) token deposits on its platform. This move comes in...

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

Crypto exchange Kraken has announced a temporary stoppage of Monero (XMR) token deposits on its platform. This move comes in response to the ongoing 51% attack against the Monero blockchain, an open-source protocol and privacy-focused network.

For context, a 51% attack refers to a situation where a group of miners gains more than 50% of a blockchain’s mining hash rate. On Tuesday, August 12, Qubic, a project led by IOTA co-founder Sergey Ivancheglo, claimed that it has seized control of the majority of the Monero blockchain’s hash rate. 

According to the Qubic mining pool, the 51% attack was executed using a useful proof-of-work (uPoW or UPoW) mechanism. As reported on Bitcoinist, the Qubic team is taking half the mining profits in XMR, converting them into USDT to buy QUBIC tokens, and then sending them to a burn address.

Why Did Kraken Suspend Monero Deposits On Its Platform?

In an August 15 update on its website, Kraken announced that it is temporarily stopping the deposit of Monero tokens on its trading platform after detecting that a single mining pool has taken control of more than half of the blockchain’s total hashing power.

The cryptocurrency exchange said:

This concentration of mining power poses a potential risk to network integrity. We are actively monitoring the situation and will resume deposits once we determine it is safe to do so. Trading and withdrawals for XMR remain fully operational.

Following the release of Qubic’s claim, emerging reports on social media platform X revealed that there indeed was a six-block reorganization on the Monero blockchain, suggesting that the team does control a large enough portion of the hash rate.

As Kraken mentioned, it is worth noting that Qubic’s seizure and control of the majority of Monero’s total hashing power could be significantly detrimental to the decentralized ethos of blockchain technology. As it stands—with Qubic controlling 51% of the hash rate, the network is at risk of transaction censoring, double spends, and blocks reorganization, undermining the blockchain’s integrity.

XMR Price Overview

The reaction of the XMR price to these claims of a 51% attack on the Monero blockchain has been fairly measured. While the altcoin did lose more than 10% of its value immediately the news broke out and a further 5% in the subsequent days, the Monero token seems to be recovering well.

As of this writing, the Monero token is valued at around $265, reflecting a nearly 12% jump in the past 24 hours. Meanwhile, CoinGecko data shows that the altcoin is down by only 4% on the weekly timeframe.

Monero

The price of XMR on the daily timeframe | Source: XMRUSDT chart on TradingView
Featured image from iStock, chart from TradingView
Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Opeyemi Sule is a passionate crypto enthusiast, a proficient content writer, and a journalist at Bitcoinist. Opeyemi creates unique pieces unraveling the complexities of blockchain technology and sharing insights on the latest trends in the world of cryptocurrencies. Opeyemi enjoys reading poetry, chatting about politics, and listening to music, in addition to his strong interest in cryptocurrency.

Letture associate

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit1 h fa

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit1 h fa

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit2 h fa

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit2 h fa

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit2 h fa

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit2 h fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片