October Counterfeit Block: What Happened and Where Every Coin Went
Comments on “October Counterfeit Block: What Happened and Where Every Coin Went”
Claim-checked. Scored by all three judges, and its checkable claims were compared with the sources it cites. How far stories are checked
BitcoinZ says block 1,860,181, mined on 21 October, created 105 billion BTCZ through five Sprout JoinSplit transactions with all-zero proofs. Nodes had never verified Sprout proofs in received blocks, a flaw its June audit missed. Release 2.3.1 fixes the check and removes the block. The project reports that 150M wBTCZ were minted on BSC and sold for 2,892 USDT. These figures, the HitBTC link and the claim that the same actor was behind the June theft come from the project's own report, with no independent confirmation.
Why it ranked
No. 12 of 93 with a score of 0.66. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.97) and substantiated (0.90), lowest on audience breadth (0.40).
Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.66total under rubric v2.2
- Significance0.66
- Reader interest0.78
- Audience breadth0.40
- Practical relevance0.67
- Substantiated0.90
- Technical depth0.90
- New information0.97
- Counts against: Promotional0.04
- Counts against: Overclaim0.27
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance | 0.51 | 0.60 | 0.88 | 0.66 | 0.37 | +0.24 | +0.159 |
| Reader interest | 0.57 | 0.80 | 0.96 | 0.78 | 0.39 | +0.26 | +0.202 |
| Audience breadth | 0.31 | 0.55 | 0.34 | 0.40 | 0.24 | +0.13 | +0.052 |
| Practical relevance | 0.56 | 0.60 | 0.86 | 0.67 | 0.30 | +0.22 | +0.148 |
| Substantiated | 0.97 | 0.80 | 0.94 | 0.90 | 0.17 | +0.05 | +0.045 |
| Technical depth | 0.99 | 0.80 | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.19 | +0.05 | +0.045 |
| New information | 0.95 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.05 | +0.05 | +0.048 |
| Promotional | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.02 | −0.19 | −0.008 |
| Overclaim | 0.34 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.12 | −0.11 | −0.030 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.662 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.662 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-25/12/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-25/12.svg" alt="Ranked #12 on Rubric, 25 Oct 2026" width="245" height="28"></a>Claim check
Claim check: 1 matches source · 2 no source given · 5 couldn’t check. Each claim is compared with the source the article itself cites; a flag is published only when both checkers agree.
No source givenNumber
Block 1,860,181 on 21 October 2026 created 105,000,000,000 BTCZ out of nothing using five Sprout JoinSplit transactions with all-zero proofs that a block-validation bug let through.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “block 1,860,181 created 105,000,000,000 BTCZ out of nothing”
The source says No source to compare with.
Matches sourceCausal conclusion
BitcoinZ's 9 June security audit found no way to counterfeit or inflate BitcoinZ, but it missed a bug in how nodes check received blocks, which never verified the zero-knowledge proofs in Sprout transactions.
The cited source says the same thing.
The article says “the zero-knowledge proofs in Sprout transactions inside those blocks were never verified”
The source says “Correction, 22 October 2026: this review missed a bug. Blocks received from other nodes were accepted without verifying the zero-knowledge proofs of their Sprout transactions”
Source cited by the article: getbtcz.com/security-audit
Couldn’t checkNumber
The attacker deposited 510,000,000 counterfeit BTCZ into the wBTCZ bridge, which credited three of the deposits and minted 150,000,000 wBTCZ on BSC.
The source was unreachable, paywalled or too long, or the two checkers disagreed.
The article says “The bridge credited three of the deposits and minted 150,000,000 wBTCZ on BSC”
The source says No passage could be compared.
Source cited by the article: explorer.btcz.rocks/address/t1NZg8VE5UhqRyXGxqje518GjbZT1msiMvw
Couldn’t checkNumber
The attacker sold the 150M wBTCZ on PancakeSwap for a total of 2,892.18 USDT.
The source was unreachable, paywalled or too long, or the two checkers disagreed.
The article says “The attacker sold the 150M wBTCZ on PancakeSwap for 2,892.18 USDT”
The source says No passage could be compared.
Source cited by the article: bscscan.com/address/0x7bd31069afb56370f6ab63ef3d66dcba5565ba73
Couldn’t checkQuote
The USDT was sent to a deposit address that was swept into a hot wallet which the Safe Protocol Library dataset labels as HitBTC's BSC hot wallet.
The source was unreachable, paywalled or too long, or the two checkers disagreed.
The article says “the public Safe Protocol Library dataset labels it as the HitBTC BSC hot wallet”
The source says No passage could be compared.
Source cited by the article: github.com/cryptousersecurity/safeprotocollib
No source givenGeneralization
Apart from the 510M sent to the bridge, no counterfeit coins went to SafeTrade, WhiteBIT or any other exchange, and none went into the shielded pool.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “Apart from the 510M sent to the bridge, none went to SafeTrade, WhiteBIT or any other exchange, and none went into the shielded pool”
The source says No source to compare with.
Couldn’t checkCausal conclusion
The same person carried out the June 2026 Sprout theft of 56,305,778 BTCZ at block 1,789,967 and the October counterfeit block.
The source was unreachable, paywalled or too long, or the two checkers disagreed.
The article says “The same person carried out the June 2026 Sprout theft (block 1,789,967, 56,305,778 BTCZ”
The source says No passage could be compared.
Source cited by the article: explorer.btcz.rocks/address/t1KgEFBAE9N1rV2gmNKefUcmP9V3n9m8Wob
Couldn’t checkNumber
Block 1,789,967 on 20 June 2026 used the same bug to pay 56,305,778 BTCZ from a Sprout JoinSplit with an invalid proof to the miner's address.
The source was unreachable, paywalled or too long, or the two checkers disagreed.
The article says “A Sprout JoinSplit with an invalid proof and no inputs pays 56,305,778 BTCZ to”
The source says No passage could be compared.
Source cited by the article: explorer.btcz.rocks/tx/02ee84491eee2fc6a7e1558bec4adb34f50e6fd8325378bedd3fa341db5e692d
Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 3 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 25 Oct 2026, 05:46 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.