No, a Hacker couldn’t have printed unlimited Ether

This is in reference about this [post]( which is trending pretty hard right now – looking through the comment section I see that a terrible amount of people did NOT read the article and also not noticed the quotation marks around “Ether” – even though the headline is still a misleading in my opinion.

To make this clear; This bug was not found on layer 1, it was a second layer, called “[Optimism]( And therefore this could not have been used to print unlimited Ether.

If something like this happens on a second layer – you can have unlimited Ether on it. But as soon as you try to convert back to layer 1, at some point the locked ETH will be fully drained. If it’s not already noticed by then, now everyone will see this layer is broken, and it will simply collapse. Basically all ETH locked on that layer 2 project is possibly lost to the hacker – however no real damage is done to the main chain, at least in terms of blockchain integrity.

**tl;dr: top post right now is misleading as fuck. There was no bug on the main layer of Ethereum, this only happened on some layer 2 project. Read the articles.**

View Source

29 thoughts on “No, a Hacker couldn’t have printed unlimited Ether”

  1. Should you re-title your post to be more appropriately titled…

    PSA: Unlimited Ether printing on Layer 2 does not affect Layer 1 blockchain

    You’re probably expecting too much out of people here to read and understand the difference between the whole Ethereum blockchain with Optimism and other numerous Layer 2 solutions.

    Reply
  2. Thank you for this, it seems this is still awfully misunderstood, and should’ve been made clear in the first post. Hacking is a sensational fear of many people and it’s fair to be afraid, but it’s unfair to take advantage of people for a few clicks and upvotes.

    Also security should be main concern, especially for massive massive projects… I mean, nowadays even small projects have insane security. If you take a look at Kitty Kart for example, their security system is admirable, despite no immediate need for it. This should be the way it’s done

    Reply
  3. Most folks are grossly ignorant of what “L2” means with respect to the main blockchain. A valid L2 could literally be some dudes collecting proposed transactions by e-mail and doing one big aggregated transaction to Ethereum. In this situation, they too could just say the transactions are whatever they want them to be, and of course it wouldn’t be valid when they try to commit it to the main blockchain. Same situation here, but with a far more complex L2. The L2 acts as a completely separate platform, and as far as the main blockchain is concerned it it didn’t happen until it commits whatever it’s doing to the main blockchain.

    Reply
  4. Just checking, they could still do malicious thing about it no?

    Something like crashing prices on layer 2, depositing “fake” ETH to exchange, etc.

    Reply
  5. To quote from the article:

    >Optimism’s “selfdestruct” function returned crypto to the sender but kept their related off-chain Ether IOUs.This could be exploited to trick smart contracts into looping through the glitch — thus minting infinite “layer 2” crypto .The Ether created by the bug was counterfeit but Freeman suggested it could wreak havoc across the wider crypto ecosystem.

    Reply
  6. People don’t read the articles. You pretty much have to quote the whole article in the title or no one will know what it’s about lol

    Reply
  7. The fact that the post didn’t name the hacker (who is goddamn saurik – Father of iOS jailbreaking) in itself is a red-flag.
    But in this sub of degeneracy, how dare we confront facts!

    Reply
  8. That’s why the r/ignorantasFuck is needed lol. People don’t even research about what they don’t know lol. ETH is not USDT hahahah. Oh wait, USDT just prints af lol. Gotta change this shit to DAI or eMoney !

    Reply
  9. Yep, that was obvious when they said they could get unlimited ether. Money isn’t infinite here, otherwise we’d stick to dollars

    Reply
  10. Oooohh so now when something bad happens you say “it was just layer 2”, when people were complaining about the fees then people say “just use layer 2, layer 2 IS ETHEREUM”. Ethereum is a joke.

    Reply
  11. Much like the original thread. This thread also doesn’t seem to read the article.

    Yes, it wasn’t “Ether” but it’s not purely about what’s available on the locked ETH. Because using exchanges or platforms that interact with that layer to they could have traded the wETH for other assets. So the only value wasn’t in draining the locked ETH. It would be in trading wETH with no backing for other assets. Wrecking multiple markets when that wETH suddenly had no backing

    Reply
  12. I just wonder if he could’ve done it for years before anyone would’ve noticed… He didn’t have to bring down layer 2 on day 1, he could’ve just exploited it for years getting even richer that way

    Reply

Leave a Comment