Altcoin Network Hacked, Putting Three Days of Transactions at Risk! Exchanges Halt Trading!

cryptonews.ruPublicado em 2026-08-11Última atualização em 2026-08-11

Resumo

The Ravencoin (RVN) network, a Proof-of-Work altcoin, has been hacked due to a critical consensus vulnerability. Attackers created invalid blocks, with the first known one appearing on August 7, 2026. This could force a deep blockchain reorganization, potentially rolling back transactions from up to three days. Major mining pools have started mining an alternative chain to exclude the hacked branch. If this chain becomes dominant, it could revert the network to its pre-August 7 state, risking the reversal of exchange deposits and withdrawals. The Ravencoin team has advised exchanges to temporarily halt RVN deposits and withdrawals. Exchanges like Bithumb and Upbit have suspended RVN transactions and issued warnings. Following the news, the price of RVN dropped approximately 20%.

Amid ongoing hacker attacks in the cryptocurrency market, hackers have this time targeted Ravencoin ($RVN), an altcoin based on the Proof-of-Work algorithm.

In this instance, hackers created invalid blocks in the Ravencoin ($RVN) network. The Ravencoin team confirmed the hack, explaining that a critical consensus vulnerability in the network was exploited, causing some nodes to accept invalid blocks.

Although the attackers managed to create invalid blocks using the vulnerability they discovered, the first known invalid block in the network, according to an official Ravencoin statement, appeared on August 7, 2026, at 15:44:01 UTC and had a height of 4,487,776.

This negative development raised concerns that the network might face a blockchain reorganization so deep that transactions from approximately the last three days would need to be reversed.

According to the statement, mining pools 2Miners and RavenMiner currently control the majority of the network's hash rate and have begun mining on an alternate chain, excluding the hacked branch, starting from block height 4,487,776. If the miners, who are said to dominate the network, decide to let this alternate chain become dominant, the chain could be rolled back four days, returning to a state prior to August 7, the date the attack began.

Such a large-scale reorganization could mean removing certain transactions from the blockchain's history and re-executing them. This, consequently, poses a significant risk, especially for exchange deposit and withdrawal operations.

Therefore, the Ravencoin team recommended that exchanges temporarily suspend $RVN deposits and withdrawals until the network stabilizes.

The project also reported that transactions confirmed after block number 4,487,775 should be considered risky.

Consequently, exchanges such as Bithumb and Upbit have temporarily suspended $RVN deposit and withdrawal operations. They also stated that $RVN received a warning.

The vulnerability in the network's security system and the potential reorganization risk directly impacted the price of $RVN. The price of Ravencoin fell by approximately 20% within minutes of the news spreading.

*This is not investment advice.

end-content

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhich specific altcoin network was targeted by hackers according to the article?

AThe Ravencoin (RVN) network, an altcoin based on the Proof-of-Work algorithm, was targeted by hackers.

QWhat was the core issue that allowed the hack on the Ravencoin network to happen?

AThe hack was possible due to a critical consensus vulnerability in the Ravencoin network, which caused some nodes to accept invalid blocks created by the attackers.

QWhat potential consequence does the article mention regarding blockchain history?

AThe article mentions the potential for a deep blockchain reorganization (reorg), which could require rolling back transactions from approximately the last three days, effectively removing and re-executing them.

QWhat action did the Ravencoin team recommend for cryptocurrency exchanges?

AThe Ravencoin team recommended that exchanges temporarily suspend RVN deposits and withdrawals until the network stabilizes.

QWhat immediate market impact did the news of the hack have on the price of RVN?

AThe price of Ravencoin (RVN) dropped by approximately 20% within minutes after the news of the hack spread.

Leituras Relacionadas

Google and Meta Called Out for Benchmark Gaming

Recently, analysis firm SemiAnalysis accused tech giants Google and Meta of "benchmark gaming" with their AI models Gemini 3.8 Flash and Muse Spark 1.3. The accusation stems from a dramatic performance drop between two versions of the Terminal-Bench evaluation for AI agents. On the older, public Terminal-Bench 2.1, Gemini 3.8 Flash scored 89.4, ranking second and beating GPT-6 Astra, while Muse Spark 1.3 scored 88.8. However, on the newly released, more secure Terminal-Bench 4.0, their scores plummeted to 19.1 and approximately 33.3 respectively, far behind competitors. SemiAnalysis argues this indicates "benchmark contamination," where companies train models not on the public test questions themselves, but on expensive, privately purchased training data specifically designed to mimic the benchmark's style. This has evolved into a lucrative industry, with specialized firms selling tailored training tasks for thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The article specifically points to Datacurve, a company that both sells expert coding data and runs its own benchmark (DeepSWE), where the accused models also performed well. Meta's Chief AI Officer, Alexandr Wang, dismissed the claims as a "silly argument," pointing out similar performance drops for other models like GPT-5.6 Sol. He stated Meta never claimed Muse Spark 1.3 was as powerful as top-tier models, only that it offered better value. The report concludes that this is the inevitable fate of all high-quality public benchmarks—they become "gamed" over time. The proposed solution of private, high-quality benchmarks comes with a significant downside: it would erode public transparency, turning open rankings into marketing tools and leaving developers without a common, fair measure to compare AI models.

marsbitHá 23m

Google and Meta Called Out for Benchmark Gaming

marsbitHá 23m

Crypto's Nouveau Riche Strikes Gold in the Real World: Coinbase Co-founder's Venezuelan Oil Field Adventure

Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam is venturing into the oil fields of Venezuela, a surprising shift for a prominent figure in the digital asset space. Through his company Primavera Infinita, he recently secured a production contract for the Budare-Elotes block with Venezuela's state oil firm PDVSA. This move into a politically volatile, sanction-scarred country highlights a bet on high returns from its reopening under new leadership and shifting U.S. foreign policy. Ehrsam’s investment reflects a venture capital-style appetite for risk, targeting assets deeply discounted by political uncertainty. He is not alone; smaller, politically connected U.S. firms like Aspect Holdings and Hunt Oil are also entering, while established giants like ExxonMobil remain cautious due to past expropriations. To manage the complex, capital-intensive nature of oil, Ehrsam is assembling a professional team. This trend extends beyond Ehrsam. Other crypto wealth, like BitMEX's Arthur Hayes and Tether, is diversifying into traditional hard assets—energy, metals, and agriculture—seeking physical scarcity as a long-term anchor. Tether, for instance, took a controlling stake in agricultural giant Adecoagro. These moves signify crypto capital's evolving interest: not just tokenizing real-world assets (RWA), but directly acquiring and operating them. Ultimately, Ehrsam's gamble is less on oil geology and more on the duration of Venezuela's current political window. It underscores a broader narrative where digital-era wealth seeks stability and scale in the physical world's most traditional, immovable resources.

marsbitHá 48m

Crypto's Nouveau Riche Strikes Gold in the Real World: Coinbase Co-founder's Venezuelan Oil Field Adventure

marsbitHá 48m

Refuting the Ethereum 'Abandoning' ETH Narrative: What Does It Really Mean to Pay Gas Without ETH?

Title: Refuting the "Ethereum Abandoning ETH" Argument: What Does Paying Gas Without ETH Really Mean? The debate sparked by Vitalik Buterin's discussion of EIP-8141 (Frame Transactions), which suggests users could pay transaction fees without holding ETH, has led to extreme claims that ETH will lose its value. However, this perspective misunderstands the proposal. Currently, an Ethereum user initiating a transaction must also pay the network's Gas fee in ETH. EIP-8141 aims to decouple these actions. It allows a transaction to be split into separate "frames." A user could sign a transaction to, for example, send USDC, while a separate Paymaster account pays the required ETH Gas fee on their behalf. The user would then settle the cost with the Paymaster using USDC or another token. From the user's perspective, they pay in a stablecoin without interacting with ETH. Crucially, from the Ethereum protocol's perspective, the Gas is still paid in ETH; only the settlement layer between the user and Paymaster changes. This concept isn't entirely new; ERC-4337's Account Abstraction already allows similar Gas sponsorship. EIP-8141 seeks to integrate this capability more natively. The core goal is to drastically improve user experience by abstracting away the complexity of Gas, similar to how one pays with a credit card abroad without handling the local currency. It also enables atomic operations, like bundling token approval with a swap, which would revert together if the swap fails. Regarding ETH's value, the argument that "no ETH is needed" is incorrect. While users may not hold ETH, Paymasters and services must still acquire and spend ETH to pay network fees on the backend. The demand for ETH shifts from being distributed across millions of user wallets to being concentrated in the balances of these service providers. The key variable is whether this improved usability attracts significant new users and increases overall network activity. If it does, total ETH burned in fees could rise substantially. If it doesn't, the change merely reshuffles who holds the ETH needed for Gas. In summary, EIP-8141 aims to lower the entry barrier by hiding Gas complexity, betting that this will drive broader adoption and increase the fundamental utility—and thus demand—for the Ethereum network and ETH itself.

marsbitHá 48m

Refuting the Ethereum 'Abandoning' ETH Narrative: What Does It Really Mean to Pay Gas Without ETH?

marsbitHá 48m

Trading

Spot
活动图片