Dragonfly holds ZEC, Orchard vulnerability sparks new controversy

robot
Abstract generation in progress
CryptoWorld News reported that Dragonfly partner Haseeb Qureshi said that Zcash (ZEC) faces new scrutiny after a vulnerability in the Orchard pool was patched, and the market may view this vulnerability as a greater threat than current evidence suggests. He noted that the vulnerability could allow the creation of counterfeit ZEC, but those tokens would face obstacles when being sold. Attackers would need to transfer the counterfeit ZEC into transparent ZEC to use it on major exchanges, so the direct risk to ordinary trading users is limited. Qureshi also said that after the vulnerability was disclosed, the share of the Shielded Pool’s supply fell from 31% to 30% within 48 hours, and this small drop did not show signs that privacy users were rushing to leave the pool. Zcash founder Wei DAI believes that attackers may not need to empty the Orchard pool, but could instead keep the counterfeit ZEC in the shielded environment and slowly move it via private transfers.
ZEC-3.2%
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
Add a comment
Add a comment
GateUser-744c843b
· 4h ago
Vulnerability fixes and audits are being intensified; does this count as replacing old problems with new ones?
View OriginalReply0
BluePeonyCalmingAgent
· 9h ago
The Orchard pool patch was implemented quickly enough, but after the review mechanism upgrade, balancing privacy and compliance has become more challenging.
View OriginalReply0
NightAuditBuddy
· 9h ago
Shielded Pool only drops 1%? Privacy people really have big hearts—if it were me, I’d have bailed out already.
View OriginalReply0
FeeSwitchLobbyist
· 9h ago
Faking ZEC to ship out still requires washing transparent addresses; this design actually adds a layer of protection for ordinary users.
View OriginalReply0
OldKeyboardTraitor
· 10h ago
Wei Dai's speculation is quite interesting; gradual transfer is more discreet than clearing out, and attackers are playing a long-term game.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-ecded933
· 10h ago
31% to 30% is nothing but a withdrawal; truly heavy users are too lazy to move at all.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pinned