It is known that any cryptocurrency wallet has two keys:

• The public key, which is used publicly and through which the transaction can be traced and the coins received and sent with it.
• The private key, which must be placed in a safe place and preserved, because it provides the authority to the holder and enables him to access the wallet and move currencies.

Apparently, the hacker Robert M. Forrester” in the article’s photo breaks the custom by publishing the private key, challenging those who steal his coins.

On January 3rd, coinciding with Bitcoin’s birthday, Forrester released the private key to his Ethereum wallet, challenging who can transfer it.

Read:Bitcoin mining difficulty rate continues to reach record levels…details here

20 minutes after Forrester published the private key, the funds moved.

But the person who turned her was impressed that he was not able to confirm the transaction and shared what happened with him.

As we can see in the screenshot above, the “eth” coins went to 0x25, not 0x4e2.

For reference in Forrester’s initial statement, he said 0x25 is his safety wallet and is where the coins will go when trying to move them.

He successfully challenged him thanks to a technique called “Replace by Fee” (RBF).

The process is complicated, but the idea is simple:

The idea is very simple.

You sign the transaction, but don’t tell the network about it, you keep it to yourself as a backup.

Once something happens, as with the one who tried to transfer Ethereum above, the backup activation process happens quickly.

In order for the backup transaction to be validated without the new transaction, a higher fee is charged for the backup copy of the new transaction.

Thus, the balance of the backup transaction outweighs the new transaction.

Read:DBS Bank plans to launch cryptocurrency trading services for individuals by the end of 2022

The process is a bit complicated and new but easy to understand and based on fee exchange.

As we know and as an implicit rule miners approve transactions that pay higher fees.

When there are two identical transactions waiting to be listed on the network.

Miners don’t have to do both, but rather choose the transaction that pays them a higher fee.

Oftentimes miners only choose the deal that pays them the most regardless of whether the transaction is a second or third “clone.”

So when the intruder broadcasts the theft deal, the “System”block“By airing the system that had already been signed and set up, it was provided with a higher gas fee.

In Ethereum the block times are down to 12 seconds so the blockd system should run very fast when the network is not congested, and even if it is congested because a hacker can always overcharge.

Thus, the hacker “Robert M. Forrester” set up his fallback transaction to automatically increase the fee and larger than any attempt to transmit the disclosure.

So the end result becomes a waste of time because if the hacker raises the fees, and the backend is also raising the fees even higher than him until you reach the point where the full value is the fees, not only will the hacker risk imprisonment but also won’t win anything.

Read:Here’s Why The SEC Doesn’t Allow Coinbase To Launch Lending Products

private and public key:

As we know, cryptographic signature is a way to prove your identity, that you have the private key, while not revealing your identity exactly as the exact numbers and letters of the private key do not appear which looks something like what Forrester posted:

ca9a3a3d4026e6228713e683a9c45ef65a538b2f9336813bd597f5effa38668d

If you publish these letters and numbers, you give the hacker full authority, but not publishing it in signed form may restrict the action.

In this case, what was signed has the right to transfer funds to the secure public wallet address.

This ability to order without revealing yourself is a huge part of the Bitcoin invention, without which this whole thing wouldn’t have worked as smoothly as it does, but each signature clearly reveals a very small portion of the private key.

So the advice is usually to change the address each time a transaction takes place.

Realistically, no one publishes his private key publicly to open himself up to misfortunes he does not need.

But what Forrester has done is to prove the strength of the encryption and how the authentication works on the blockchain and the unsigned transaction makes revealing the private key useless especially if we assume that before the blockd is turned on and the fee-replacement system is activated where and each time the money will go to the secure wallet.

So the implementation and combination of all these aspects in Blockd is very interesting.

Because although it does not provide complete security because no man-made system can be 100% perfect, it does provide a higher level of security through a very complex set of conditions.

Read also:

Hackers Demand Mexican Oil Company $5 Million in Bitcoin (BTC)

Indiana County Pays $130,000 in Bitcoin Ransom to Hackers