@Yemcasteron X · 2026-09-11
A tamper-evident, on-chain timestamp of what this post said. Captured 2026-09-12 14:55 UTC.
On the technical question you're asking, the root cause has been published: a cache-key collision in the confidential transaction verification path. That's what let roughly 4,000 L-BTC be minted with no BTC behind them. Patched in Elements v23.3.4. Your point about multiple defenses failing together holds up. The mint was one failure, SideSwap's peg-out architecture was the second, and the federation keys were never compromised at any point. So this wasn't a break-in, it was the accounting failing to notice tokens that shouldn't exist and the exit path accepting them as real. Liquid held about 4,200 BTC before this. Nearly the whole reserve walked through a verification cache. L-BTC is sitting around 85% backed right now while the network processes blocks again. That's the part still unresolved, and it's a users problem, not a Blockstream one, until the 598 move.
Verify it yourself: the manifest is the exact JSON whose
SHA-256 is 8921874b0e09f2fa83428293672dd03ef2bf3bb93e636dca817b67cf81035678; it binds the tweet id, author, post time, and the SHA-256 of the text above. Re-hash the text to match 33c3c7ce42c1233c8a378a18450e5342ffafcb84a23ea444012e7f48d33491db, and read the anchor transaction's OP_RETURN
bsv.cx / x1 / 8921874b0e09f2fa83428293672dd03ef2bf3bb93e636dca817b67cf81035678 — the block's timestamp proves the post said this at or before that time,
with no trust in bsv.cx. Content archived via the X API.