Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.
Čítaj viac
Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.
Čítaj viac
Ethereum developers have postponed the Glamsterdam hard fork on the Hoodi testnet after researchers identified gas-related security risks that could affect how existing smart contracts handle failed transactions.The Ethereum Foundation (EF) said that the upgrade, originally scheduled for Oct. 26, would be delayed to allow developers to investigate how some proposals interact with smart contracts deployed on Ethereum. On Oct. 13, Blockchain security firm ChainSecurity warned that two proposals included in Glamsterdam, EIP-8037 and EIP-8038, could weaken safeguards against a type of attack called insufficient gas griefing. The postponement raises uncertainty over Glamsterdam’s mainnet timeline. Ethereum developers had been considering early December, with plans to finalize a schedule following successful Hoodi testing. Gas changes could undermine existing smart contract safeguardsIn its analysis, ChainSecurity said that under the new rules, gas could be returned to a contract after an operation fails, allowing it to continue running when it previously would have stopped. The researchers said the changes could interfere with existing security checks that rely on how much gas remains available during a transaction. In attacks known as insufficient gas griefing, a malicious caller deliberately provides too little gas for a legitimate smart contract operation to succeed. ChainSecurity warned that Glamsterdam’s proposed changes could undermine safeguards against such attacks, potentially allowing contracts to permanently record failed operations. For example, an affected contract could remove a user’s claim or disable the option to retry it, leaving the user unable to complete an otherwise valid operation.ChainSecurity said Glamsterdam would not make all gas-related security checks unreliable. Some safeguards could still work, but developers would need to review them to ensure they account for the upgrade’s new gas rules.Related: Ethereum Foundation warns some tools may break with Glamsterdam upgradeThe findings prompted concern among Ethereum contributors. In an Oct. 21 comment on GitHub, pseudonymous security researcher pcaversaccio described the risks as “serious” and called for a reassessment of the hard fork. On Friday, ChainSecurity said it had identified “13 real-world examples” and was coordinating responsible disclosure with affected projects. The security firm did not disclose details of the 13 real-world examples or identify the affected projects. However, the company said developers should check their contracts as soon as possible. The findings follow an earlier Ethereum Foundation warning that Glamsterdam’s gas model could break wallets, indexers, and gas estimators that rely on fixed assumptions. The upgrade was previously activated on Sepolia on Oct. 6, ahead of its now-postponed Hoodi deployment.Magazine: 5 alternatives to Ledger to store your Bitcoin
Čítaj viac
US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) daily flows aren’t reliable guides to BTC’s next move as investors tend to chase rallies and sell into slumps, according to DWF Labs. In a research report published Thursday, DWF found that investors pulled money from the funds during seven of the eight times Bitcoin’s price dropped at least 15%. All nine rallies of that size drew net inflows. The analysis reviewed 694 trading days dating back to January 2024, when Bitcoin ETFs first launched in the US.“ETF flows confirm moves; they don’t predict them,” DWF said in its report. “The evidence points mostly to investors reacting to price, not driving it.”Investors tended to put money into Bitcoin ETFs after prices rose and pull it out after prices fell. Those flows offered almost no clue to whether Bitcoin would rise or fall over the next five days.Each day’s ETF flows had a moderate relationship with Bitcoin’s price changes over the five trading sessions before that day, with a correlation of 0.54. On a scale where zero means no relationship, the correlation for the following five days was 0.03.ETF outflows in seven of eight Bitcoin sell-offs. Source: DWF LabsETF outflows don’t show who soldThe heaviest withdrawals came during the two most recent sell-offs. Investors withdrew a net $6.9 billion between October 2025 and February 2026, followed by $8.2 billion during the May–June decline.The figures do not show whether institutions or retail investors drove the selling. DWF did not separate the two groups in its analysis.“We don’t have a clear split on the exact buyers/sellers of the ETFs,” a DWF Labs spokesperson told Cointelegraph.Related: Institutions held crypto through 50% drawdown, Bitwise findsSome ETF activity also comes from investors buying fund shares while betting against Bitcoin through CME futures to earn the price gap between the two positions. DWF estimated that roughly a fifth of flows may have been hedged this way, although its data could not confirm that the same investors held both sides of the trades.A CoinShares analysis published in June found that professional investors reduced their Bitcoin ETF exposure by 17% in the first quarter of 2026. Hedge funds and brokerages accounted for roughly 96% of the reduction, while banks increased their holdings.Bitcoin’s sell-offs have slowedBitcoin has had about three sell-offs of 15% or more a year since the ETFs launched, compared with roughly four a year in 2022–2023 and eight in 2021, the report found. The declines have also become more gradual, but the losses are still comparable. The median sell-off wiped out 21.3%, against 19.4% in 2022–2023.“The changes aren’t solely due to the ETF,” the spokesperson said, noting that volatility and the frequency of sell-offs were already declining before the funds launched in 2024. Magazine: 5 alternatives to Ledger to store your Bitcoin
Čítaj viac
Starknet’s community has voted to support research into becoming an independent, post-quantum layer-1 blockchain. The network’s potential departure from Ethereum gained overwhelming support. The governance vote that ran for seven days closed on Thursday. The poll drew about 3,200 votes, with 93.52% of voting power in favor of the transition. The non-binding poll recorded the highest participation in Starknet’s governance history, according to StarkWare, which said it abstained from voting to leave the decision to the community.The outcome allows StarkWare and the Starknet Foundation to proceed with research into an independent L1. The actual shift itself would require a separate, binding governance vote. For now, Starknet will continue operating as an Ethereum layer-2 network. “We’re beginning work on a whitepaper even before we start the weekend, and hope to release a draft for public scrutiny in November,” StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson told Cointelegraph. Starknet outlines next steps for post-quantum L1 researchStarkWare and the Starknet Foundation have established a working group to examine the proposed transition and develop more detailed technical proposals.The governance proposal states that STRK will remain the network’s native token, with no new token planned, while existing bridges between Starknet and Ethereum will remain open.StarkWare first raised the potential transition on Oct. 8, citing concerns about the network’s dependence on Ethereum for security. Although Starknet uses hash-based STARK proofs and supports programmable accounts capable of adopting post-quantum signatures, its bridge and data availability infrastructure remain dependent on Ethereum’s upgrade timeline.Related: Trump administration outlines quantum, AI initiatives in $6B science pushIn June, StarkWare unveiled a three-phase quantum-resistance roadmap covering cryptographic upgrades, smart-contract migration and Ethereum-dependent infrastructure. StarkWare’s Quantum Hub says it has already tested technology designed to withstand future quantum attacks, successfully processing a transaction on Starknet’s live network. However, the technology remains experimental and has not yet undergone a security audit.Ben-Sasson has set a 2027 target for making Starknet quantum-resistant, ahead of Ethereum’s projected timeline. “Ethereum’s target of 2029 to become quantum-safe is too late, and deadlines slip,” he said. Magazine: 5 alternatives to Ledger to store your Bitcoin
Čítaj viac
