Zcash Bug Could Have Minted Unlimited ZEC Undetected

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-06-05Востаннє оновлено о 2026-06-05

Анотація

A critical vulnerability in Zcash's Orchard shielded pool, discovered by researcher Taylor Hornby on May 29, 2026, could have allowed an attacker to create an unlimited amount of undetectable counterfeit ZEC. The flaw, involving an under-constrained element in the Orchard circuit, existed from the pool's 2022 activation until an emergency fix was deployed by June 2, 2026. Hornby identified the bug using AI-assisted auditing tools and confirmed its exploitability in a test environment. Due to Orchard's privacy features, which hide transaction amounts and history, there is no cryptographic way to prove whether the vulnerability was exploited before the fix. While Shielded Labs assesses prior exploitation as unlikely, this uncertainty has sparked a debate on proving supply integrity in privacy-preserving systems. In response, Shielded Labs and other developers are exploring a network upgrade, potentially involving a new shielded pool and formal verification of the circuit rules to prevent future vulnerabilities and allow verification of the ZEC supply's integrity. ZEC's price fell nearly 45% following the disclosure.

A critical vulnerability in Zcash’s Orchard shielded pool could have allowed an attacker to create an unlimited amount of counterfeit ZEC without detection, according to a new disclosure from Zooko Wilcox, Jason McGee and security researcher Taylor Hornby. The flaw was discovered on May 29, remediated through an emergency ecosystem response completed by June 2, and has now triggered a broader debate over how Zcash can prove supply integrity in a privacy-preserving system.

Orchard Flaw Puts Zcash Supply Integrity Under Scrutiny

The vulnerability was found by Hornby, an experienced security engineer hired by Shielded Labs in April 2026 to conduct ongoing security research on the Zcash protocol. According to the disclosure, the mandate was straightforward: find protocol-level weaknesses before adversaries did. Hornby began reviewing Zcash with a combination of traditional security research and newer AI-assisted auditing methods.

The timing was unusually compressed. Shortly after Anthropic released its Opus 4.8 model on May 28, Hornby used it in a targeted review of the Orchard circuit. One day later, he found a critical counterfeiting flaw and disclosed it to Zcash Open Development Lab, or ZODL, whose engineers coordinated the emergency response with other ecosystem participants.

“The vulnerability could have been exploited to undetectably create an unlimited amount of counterfeit ZEC within Orchard,” the Shielded Labs post said. “Because of the privacy properties of Orchard, there is no way to cryptographically prove whether the vulnerability was exploited before it was remediated. However, a network upgrade can be deployed to protect users and prove the integrity of the Zcash supply.”

The disclosure states that the bug was “real and exploitable.” Hornby, with the help of Opus 4.8, wrote a complete exploit and tested it in a local regtest environment, where it generated unlimited counterfeit ZEC that could not be detected. The authors said that had the same tool been run on mainnet, it would have generated unlimited, undetectable counterfeit ZEC in Hornby’s mainnet wallet.

Technically, the issue involved an under-constrained element of the Orchard circuit. That made it possible to feed arbitrary false inputs into an elliptic curve multiplication while still passing the multiplication check. The vulnerability existed from Orchard’s activation in May 2022 until the emergency fix was deployed on June 1, 2026.

That timeline is central to the concern. In a transparent ledger, supply irregularities can generally be audited by inspecting public balances and transaction values. Orchard is different by design: it hides amounts and transaction history. That privacy model means the system depends heavily on the correctness of the circuit rules that define valid shielded transactions.

Josh Swihart, founder and CEO of Zcash Open Development Lab, the team behind the creation and launch of Zcash and builder of the Zodl wallet, framed the issue in those terms in a separate post. “A shielded Zcash transaction includes a proof that it followed the protocol’s rules, as defined in the rulebook (the circuit) that defines what constitutes a valid transaction. The Orchard vulnerability was in one of the rules, written loosely enough that it would accept false information and still pass. As a result, the engine could be convinced that a fake transaction was valid.”

Swihart added that the flaw was not in Zcash’s underlying cryptography or the proof engine itself, but in the handwritten rules. In his words, “This was a flaw in the handwritten rules, not in the underlying cryptography or the engine that creates proofs.”

Shielded Labs said prior exploitation appears unlikely, while emphasizing that users should not be asked to rely on that assessment alone. The authors pointed to several reasons for their view: the flaw had evaded years of scrutiny by leading cryptographers, Hornby was specifically hired to find such vulnerabilities, and the response window after discovery was sharply narrowed by the speed of ZODL and the broader Zcash ecosystem.

“The discovery was not accidental—it was the result of a deliberate effort to identify vulnerabilities of this kind before malicious actors could,” the post said. “Taylor is one of the most skilled people in the world at this. He used the most recent AI tools, available only to white-hat security researchers, along with a sophisticated custom-built AI harness and prompts, and worked hard to outrace the attackers. We think he probably succeeded.”

Still, the authors acknowledged the unresolved cryptographic uncertainty. Because of Orchard’s privacy properties and the nature of the bug, they said there is no definitive way to prove solely through cryptography whether the vulnerability was exploited before the fix.

Shielded Labs Eyes New Pool And Formal Verification

To address that, Shielded Labs is exploring a proposed network upgrade with other Zcash developers. The plan would deploy a new shielded pool and enforce turnstile accounting on coins moving from the existing Orchard pool, with the goal of allowing anyone to verify the integrity of the Zcash supply and prove the non-existence of counterfeit ZEC in Orchard. A follow-up post is expected next week with more details, including tradeoffs and implementation mechanics. Any major upgrade would still need community support and the standard governance process before activation.

Swihart said a second Orchard pool could, in principle, be targeted for NU7 at the end of July, though he did not take a fixed position on whether that path should be pursued. He argued that the larger issue is preventing this class of failure from recurring, with formal verification as the strongest answer.

“Formal verification fixes this,” Swihart wrote. “A mathematical proof can be constructed to reduce the parts humans must review to a concise, readable statement of the rules. A computer then checks the entire rulebook to ensure it matches. AI tools can now do the work of writing these proofs.”

Shielded Labs said it is already accelerating proactive security work with Hornby and Anthropic, initiating a project to formally verify the Orchard circuit, and opening searches for a Head of Security and a Cryptographer. The episode leaves Zcash with a difficult but clear path: repair the trust assumptions around Orchard, prove supply integrity where possible, and move future shielded design closer to machine-checked guarantees rather than human-reviewed complexity.

Over the past 24 hours, ZEC has fallen nearly 45% amid the uncertainty. At press time, it was trading at $337.

ZEC trades below the 1.618 Fib again, 1-week chart | Source: ZECUSDT on TradingView.com

Пов'язані питання

QWhat was the nature of the critical vulnerability discovered in Zcash's Orchard shielded pool?

AThe vulnerability was a critical counterfeiting flaw. An under-constrained element in the Orchard circuit allowed an attacker to feed arbitrary false inputs into an elliptic curve multiplication while still passing the multiplication check, potentially enabling the creation of an unlimited amount of counterfeit ZEC that could not be detected.

QWho discovered the vulnerability, and what tools aided in its discovery?

AThe vulnerability was discovered by security researcher Taylor Hornby, who was hired by Shielded Labs. He used a combination of traditional security research and newer AI-assisted auditing methods, specifically employing Anthropic's Opus 4.8 model released on May 28 in a targeted review of the Orchard circuit, which led to the discovery the next day.

QWhy is it impossible to cryptographically prove whether the Orchard vulnerability was exploited before it was fixed?

ADue to the privacy properties of the Orchard shielded pool, which hides transaction amounts and history by design. This means supply irregularities cannot be audited by inspecting public data, unlike transparent ledgers. The system relies on the correctness of the circuit rules, and the bug's nature leaves no definitive cryptographic trace of prior exploitation.

QWhat proposed solution is Shielded Labs exploring to address the supply integrity concerns raised by the Orchard bug?

AShielded Labs is exploring a proposed network upgrade to deploy a new shielded pool. This plan would enforce turnstile accounting on coins moving from the existing Orchard pool, with the goal of allowing anyone to verify the integrity of the Zcash supply and prove the non-existence of counterfeit ZEC in Orchard.

QAccording to Josh Swihart, what is the strongest long-term solution to prevent this class of failure from recurring?

AJosh Swihart identified formal verification as the strongest answer. This involves constructing a mathematical proof to reduce the human-reviewed parts to a concise statement of the rules, and then using a computer to check that the entire rulebook matches those rules, with AI tools now capable of writing these proofs.

Пов'язані матеріали

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

NEAR Returns to AI Origins: From Payroll Struggles to Blockchain, Now Focusing on AI Agents and Privacy NEAR Protocol's journey began not with grand blockchain ambitions, but from a practical hurdle: its AI startup founders, including Transformer paper co-author Illia Polosukhin, couldn't efficiently pay international developers in 2017. This led them to pivot and build a high-performance, scalable blockchain. After years navigating various crypto narratives like sharding and cross-chain interoperability, NEAR is now leveraging its AI roots to re-enter the AI arena. A key driver is its "NEAR Intents" layer, which abstracts complex cross-chain transactions. Users simply state their goal (e.g., swap BTC for ETH), and a solver network finds the optimal route. This system has processed over $20B in cross-chain volume, generating significant fee revenue. A major growth area is private transactions via "Confidential Intents/Swaps," which hide trade details until settlement to protect against MEV and front-running. Remarkably, private swaps recently accounted for over 40% of NEAR's transaction volume, highlighting strong demand but also potential regulatory scrutiny. With its AI-founder pedigree, NEAR is positioning itself at the intersection of blockchain, AI agents, and privacy, aiming to become infrastructure for the emerging agent economy while navigating the challenges of its rapid adoption.

marsbit1 год тому

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

marsbit1 год тому

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

In recent discussions, Vitalik Buterin has frequently emphasized the concept of "CROPS," a framework defining core values for Ethereum's development. CROPS stands for Censorship Resistance, Capture Resistance, Open Source, Privacy, and Security. Initially outlined in the Ethereum Foundation's "EF Mandate," it represents a commitment to user sovereignty, ensuring that the network resists external control, remains open, protects privacy, and prioritizes security. The relevance of CROPS extends beyond Ethereum's foundational principles, becoming crucial in the context of AI integration. As AI agents begin handling wallet operations and automated transactions, the risk increases that users may cede control over their digital assets, privacy, and intentions to centralized AI service providers. A "CROPS AI" would therefore emphasize local execution where possible, privacy-preserving remote model calls (e.g., using zero-knowledge proofs), and transparent, verifiable processes to maintain user agency. Vitalik highlights a significant convergence between "CROPS Ethereum access layer" and "CROPS AI." Both address the same fundamental challenge: how users can access powerful services—be it blockchain data via RPCs or AI models—without exposing sensitive information or relinquishing ultimate control. This intersection points toward a future digital entry point that is more private, secure, and user-controlled. Ultimately, CROPS is not merely an abstract ideal but a practical guidepost. It steers development—from protocol resilience and wallet design to AI agent safety—towards a future where users retain self-sovereignty even as digital systems grow more complex and powerful. In an era of accelerating AI adoption, these "slow variables" of censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security may define Ethereum's enduring value.

marsbit1 год тому

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

marsbit1 год тому

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

Silicon Valley investor and "Godfather of Startups" Steve Hoffman warns that combining Web3 with AI is likely a trap, not a promising venture. In an interview, Hoffman argues that while AI is a foundational technology touching all industries, Web3 adds complexity, friction, and regulatory risk without solving mainstream consumer or business needs. He advises founders to focus on deep, specialized applications where startups can out-iterate giants, rather than on generic features easily replicated by large tech companies. Hoffman observes that Silicon Valley will lead foundational AI research, while China excels at rapid, large-scale application and commercialization, particularly in robotics. He stresses that AI-driven autonomous agents capable of collaborative, multi-step tasks are 2-4 years away, which will cause significant job displacement. The solution is not to slow AI but to redesign business models around human-AI collaboration and reform social systems like education and retraining. For startups, Hoffman recommends focusing on vertical, expertise-heavy domains to build defensibility. He sees major opportunities in AI fraud detection and cybersecurity. Key founder mindsets include systemic thinking over feature-focus, relentless customer centricity, building adaptive teams, and deeply understanding AI's capabilities and limits. Hoffman is also leading a non-profit initiative to establish university centers aimed at training future leaders in responsible, human-value-aligned AI innovation.

marsbit2 год тому

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

marsbit2 год тому

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

The article "Tokens Aren't Economical, Economics Aren't Tokenized" analyzes a pivotal shift in the AI industry from a technology-driven narrative to one dominated by capital efficiency. It highlights two concurrent trends: a severe capital shortage due to the exorbitant and recurring costs of compute (e.g., OpenAI's high burn rate) and a wave of corporate spin-offs where major tech companies are separating their AI units (like Kuaishou's Kling and Baidu's Kunlunxin). The core argument is that AI's "anti-internet" business model, where user growth increases costs rather than profits, has created a disconnect between high valuations and actual cash flow. Spin-offs address this by allowing AI assets to be valued independently. Within a parent company, they are seen as cost centers, but as standalone entities, they are priced based on their growth potential and scarcity in the primary market, leading to massive valuation premiums (e.g., Kling's estimated value tripling post-spin-off). The industry is at an inflection point, moving from "model worship" to "value realization." The competition is evolving from a pure compute (GPU) race to a broader focus on systemic efficiency and full-stack engineering (involving CPUs and orchestration) to achieve viable commercialization. The year 2026 is framed as a critical moment where the industry must definitively answer how to economically translate AI capability into tangible business value, reshaping the sector's future power structure.

marsbit2 год тому

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

marsbit2 год тому

Crossing the 'Memory Wall': The Wafer-Level Revolution and Computing Power Routes in the AI Inference Era

In 2026, a historic shift occurred in AI as major cloud providers' inference spending surpassed training spending for the first time, signaling a move from "building large models" to "using large models." This shifts the core challenge from computing power to the "memory wall"—the bottleneck of data movement (model weights, activations, KV Cache) between external DRAM and processors, where energy and latency from data transfer far exceed computation itself. Companies like Nvidia face GPU idle time due to bandwidth limits. In contrast, Cerebras Systems adopts a radical "wafer-scale" approach with its Wafer-Scale Engine (WSE). Instead of cutting a silicon wafer into many chips, Cerebras uses almost the entire wafer as one massive chip (WSE-3). This design provides 44GB of on-chip SRAM, delivering memory bandwidth thousands of times higher than traditional HBM (e.g., 21 PB/s vs. Nvidia B200). For LLM inference, weights are streamed layer-by-layer from external MemoryX storage to the chip, avoiding HBM bottlenecks. This results in token generation speeds 1.5–5 times faster than Nvidia's B200 in some models and significant advantages in first-token latency and long-context tasks. Additionally, Cerebras's architecture offers much lower interconnect power consumption (0.15 pJ/bit vs. GPU's ~10 pJ/bit). However, Cerebras faces challenges: SRAM scaling has slowed with advanced nodes, limiting future capacity gains; the chip requires specialized liquid cooling and custom software stacks; and its external I/O bandwidth (150 GB/s) is low compared to NVLink, hindering multi-system scaling for very large models. Competition is intensifying. Major players are pursuing three paths: 1) Developing proprietary inference ASICs (e.g., Google TPU, Microsoft Maia), 2) Leveraging advanced packaging (e.g., TSMC's SoW) to democratize wafer-scale-like integration, potentially eroding Cerebras's process advantage within a few years, and 3) Exploring optical interconnects for ultimate bandwidth. Commercially, Cerebras is transitioning from a hardware vendor to a service provider, facing the immense challenge of building high-power, specialized data centers to meet large contracts (e.g., 250MW/year from 2026–2028). In conclusion, the AI inference era presents a fundamental architectural trade-off. Cerebras opts for extreme physical optimization for low-latency, single-task performance, while Nvidia prioritizes versatility and massive cluster throughput. The path forward remains uncertain, with technology and business models still evolving in the race toward advanced AI.

marsbit2 год тому

Crossing the 'Memory Wall': The Wafer-Level Revolution and Computing Power Routes in the AI Inference Era

marsbit2 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси

Популярні статті

Як купити ZEC

Ласкаво просимо до HTX.com! Ми зробили покупку Zcash (ZEC) простою та зручною. Дотримуйтесь нашої покрокової інструкції, щоб розпочати свою криптовалютну подорож.Крок 1: Створіть обліковий запис на HTXВикористовуйте свою електронну пошту або номер телефону, щоб зареєструвати обліковий запис на HTX безплатно. Пройдіть безпроблемну реєстрацію й отримайте доступ до всіх функцій.ЗареєструватисьКрок 2: Перейдіть до розділу Купити крипту і виберіть спосіб оплатиКредитна/дебетова картка: використовуйте вашу картку Visa або Mastercard, щоб миттєво купити Zcash (ZEC).Баланс: використовуйте кошти з балансу вашого рахунку HTX для безперешкодної торгівлі.Треті особи: ми додали популярні способи оплати, такі як Google Pay та Apple Pay, щоб підвищити зручність.P2P: Торгуйте безпосередньо з іншими користувачами на HTX.Позабіржова торгівля (OTC): ми пропонуємо індивідуальні послуги та конкурентні обмінні курси для трейдерів.Крок 3: Зберігайте свої Zcash (ZEC)Після придбання Zcash (ZEC) збережіть його у своєму обліковому записі на HTX. Крім того, ви можете відправити його в інше місце за допомогою блокчейн-переказу або використовувати його для торгівлі іншими криптовалютами.Крок 4: Торгівля Zcash (ZEC)Легко торгуйте Zcash (ZEC) на спотовому ринку HTX. Просто увійдіть до свого облікового запису, виберіть торгову пару, укладайте угоди та спостерігайте за ними в режимі реального часу. Ми пропонуємо зручний досвід як для початківців, так і для досвідчених трейдерів.

554 переглядів усьогоОпубліковано 2024.12.12Оновлено 2026.06.02

Як купити ZEC

Обговорення

Ласкаво просимо до спільноти HTX. Тут ви можете бути в курсі останніх подій розвитку платформи та отримати доступ до професійної ринкової інформації. Нижче представлені думки користувачів щодо ціни ZEC (ZEC).

活动图片