Skip to content
NewA calmer, faster ZeroHour
Exploit / PoChighExploited in the wild

Liquid Hackers Return 3,400 Bitcoin Taken via Elements Bug, Still Holding $47M in BTC

The Hacker News ()3 min read2 · 1 read
AI summary · glm-5.3-flashSummaries by Vani AI

Hackers exploited an Elements bug to take ~4,000 BTC from Liquid Network, returned 3,400 BTC (~$265M), and still hold ~598.5 BTC (~$47M).

Attackers exploited a bug in Elements, the software behind Blockstream's Liquid Network Bitcoin sidechain, to create L-BTC and withdraw roughly 4,000 BTC (about $320 million) via SideSwap's Peg-out Authorization Key, roughly 95% of Liquid's reported reserves. They returned 3,400 BTC (about $265 million at ~$78,000 per BTC) to the federation address on September 7, keeping about 598.5 BTC (roughly $47 million). The group called itself white hats, demanded node patches before returning funds, and negotiated via on-chain and PGP-encrypted messages; Ledger CTO Charles Guillemet characterized the arrangement as extortion. Blockstream says the peg-out key and other keys were not compromised, updated software is deployed, and the network remains paused pending a coordinated restart.

Key facts
  • ~4,000 BTC withdrawn via Elements bug; ~598.5 BTC still retained
  • Withdrawal equaled roughly 95% of Liquid's reported BTC reserves
  • Self-described white hats demanded patches before returning funds
  • Liquid bridge remains paused; users warned against peg-ins
  • Blockstream states peg-out authorization key was not compromised
Analyze this story with Vani AIImpact, who is affected and what defenders should do, in a new chat

From the original article

3 min read at thehackernews.com

Whoever took nearly 4,000 bitcoin from the Liquid Network on Sunday, September 6, returned 3,400 of it the next day, Bitcoin's public record shows. About 598. 5 bitcoin has not come back.

The Hacker News

thehackernews.com

Read the full article at The Hacker News

A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.