Criptotendencias - Noticias de bitcoin, criptomonedas y blockchain
miércoles, noviembre 26, 2025
  • Actualidad
  • Bitcoin
  • Análisis Criptofinanciero
  • Altcoins
  • Blockchain
  • Tecnología
  • Base de conocimiento
Sin resultado
Ver todos los resultados
Criptotendencias - Noticias de bitcoin, criptomonedas y blockchain
  • Actualidad
  • Bitcoin
  • Análisis Criptofinanciero
  • Altcoins
  • Blockchain
  • Tecnología
  • Base de conocimiento
Sin resultado
Ver todos los resultados
Criptotendencias - Noticias de bitcoin, criptomonedas y blockchain
Sin resultado
Ver todos los resultados
Inicio Actualidad

On Nov. 21, Cardano’s mainnet bifurcated into two competing histories after a single malformed staking-delegation transaction exploited a dormant bug in newer node software. For roughly 14 and a half hours, stake pool operators and infrastructure providers watched as blocks piled up on two separate chains: one “poisoned” branch that accepted the invalid transaction and one “healthy” branch that rejected it. Exchanges paused ADA flows, wallets showed conflicting balances, and developers raced to ship patched node versions that would reunify the ledger under a single canonical history. No funds vanished, and the network never fully halted. Still, for half a day, Cardano lived the scenario Ethereum’s client-diversity advocates warn about: a consensus split triggered by software disagreement rather than an intentional fork. Cardano co-founder Charles Hoskinson said he alerted the FBI and “relevant authorities” after a former stake-pool operator admitted broadcasting the malformed delegation transaction. Law enforcement’s role here is to investigate possible criminal interference with a protected computer network, under statutes like the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, since deliberately (or recklessly) pushing an exploit to a live, interstate financial infrastructure can constitute unauthorized disruption, even if framed as “testing.” The incident offers a rare natural experiment in how layer-1 blockchains handle validation failures. Cardano preserved liveness, blocks kept coming, but sacrificed temporary uniqueness, creating two legitimate-looking chains that had to be merged back together. Solana, by contrast, has repeatedly chosen the opposite trade-off: when its single client hits a fatal bug, the network halts outright and restarts under coordinated human intervention. Ethereum aims to sit between those extremes by running multiple independent client implementations, betting that no single codebase can drag the entire validator set onto an invalid chain. Cardano’s split and the speed with which it resolved test whether a monolithic architecture with version skew can approximate the safety properties of genuine multi-client redundancy, or whether it simply got lucky. The bug and the partition Intersect, Cardano’s ecosystem governance body, traced the failure to a legacy deserialization bug in hash-handling code for delegation certificates. The flaw entered the codebase in 2022 but remained dormant until new execution paths exposed it in node versions 10.3.x through 10.5.1. When a malformed delegation transaction carrying an oversized hash hit the mempool around 08:00 UTC on Nov. 21, newer nodes accepted it as valid and built blocks on top of it. Older nodes and tooling that had not migrated to the affected code path correctly rejected the transaction as malformed. That single disagreement over validation split the network. Stake pool operators running buggy versions extended the poisoned chain, while operators on older software extended the healthy one. Ouroboros, Cardano’s proof-of-stake protocol, instructs each validator to follow the heaviest valid chain it observes, but “valid” had two different definitions depending on which node version processed the transaction. The result was a live partition: both branches continued producing blocks under normal consensus rules, but they diverged from a common ancestor and could not reconcile without manual intervention. The pattern had appeared on Cardano’s Preview testnet the day before, triggered by nearly identical delegation logic. That testnet incident alerted engineers to the bug in a low-stakes environment. Still, the fix had not yet propagated to mainnet when a former stake-pool operator, who later claimed he followed AI-generated instructions, submitted the same malformed transaction to the production network. Within hours, the chain had split, and infrastructure providers faced the question of which fork to treat as canonical. Safe failure without a kill switch Cardano’s partition resolved itself through voluntary upgrades rather than emergency coordination. Intersect and core developers shipped patched versions of node, 10.5.2 and 10.5.3, which correctly rejected the malformed transaction and rejoined the healthy chain. As stake pool operators and exchanges adopted the patches, the weight of consensus gradually tipped back toward a single ledger. By the end of Nov. 21, the network had converged, and the poisoned branch was abandoned. The incident exposed an uncomfortable gap: two canonical ledgers existed simultaneously, but several boundaries prevented it from cascading into a deep reorganization or permanent loss of finality. First, the bug lived in application-layer validation logic, not in Cardano’s cryptographic primitives or Ouroboros’ chain-selection rules. Signature checks and stake weighting continued to operate normally. The disagreement centered solely on whether the delegation transaction met ledger validity conditions. Second, the partition was asymmetric. Many critical actors, including older stake pool operators and some exchanges, ran software that rejected the bad transaction, ensuring substantial stake weight remained behind the healthy chain from the start. Third, Cardano had pre-positioned a disaster-recovery plan under CIP-135, which documented a process for coordinating around a canonical chain in more extreme scenarios. Intersect is prepared to invoke that plan as a fallback, but voluntary upgrades proved sufficient to restore consensus under normal Ouroboros rules. The narrow scope of the bug also mattered. The flaw affected a specific hash deserialization routine for delegation transactions, a bounded attack surface that could be patched and closed without requiring broader protocol changes. Once fixed, the exploit path disappeared, and no generalizable class of malformed transactions remained available to trigger future splits.

Un error de validación expuso vulnerabilidades críticas y obligó a la red a reunificarse tras 14 horas de cadenas paralelas

Irene por Irene
noviembre 26, 2025
en Actualidad
Tiempo de lectura: 4 mins lectura
0
On Nov. 21, Cardano’s mainnet bifurcated into two competing histories after a single malformed staking-delegation transaction exploited a dormant bug in newer node software.  For roughly 14 and a half hours, stake pool operators and infrastructure providers watched as blocks piled up on two separate chains: one “poisoned” branch that accepted the invalid transaction and one “healthy” branch that rejected it.  Exchanges paused ADA flows, wallets showed conflicting balances, and developers raced to ship patched node versions that would reunify the ledger under a single canonical history.  No funds vanished, and the network never fully halted. Still, for half a day, Cardano lived the scenario Ethereum’s client-diversity advocates warn about: a consensus split triggered by software disagreement rather than an intentional fork.  Cardano co-founder Charles Hoskinson said he alerted the FBI and “relevant authorities” after a former stake-pool operator admitted broadcasting the malformed delegation transaction.  Law enforcement’s role here is to investigate possible criminal interference with a protected computer network, under statutes like the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, since deliberately (or recklessly) pushing an exploit to a live, interstate financial infrastructure can constitute unauthorized disruption, even if framed as “testing.”  The incident offers a rare natural experiment in how layer-1 blockchains handle validation failures. Cardano preserved liveness, blocks kept coming, but sacrificed temporary uniqueness, creating two legitimate-looking chains that had to be merged back together.  Solana, by contrast, has repeatedly chosen the opposite trade-off: when its single client hits a fatal bug, the network halts outright and restarts under coordinated human intervention.  Ethereum aims to sit between those extremes by running multiple independent client implementations, betting that no single codebase can drag the entire validator set onto an invalid chain.  Cardano’s split and the speed with which it resolved test whether a monolithic architecture with version skew can approximate the safety properties of genuine multi-client redundancy, or whether it simply got lucky.  The bug and the partition Intersect, Cardano’s ecosystem governance body, traced the failure to a legacy deserialization bug in hash-handling code for delegation certificates.  The flaw entered the codebase in 2022 but remained dormant until new execution paths exposed it in node versions 10.3.x through 10.5.1.  When a malformed delegation transaction carrying an oversized hash hit the mempool around 08:00 UTC on Nov. 21, newer nodes accepted it as valid and built blocks on top of it.  Older nodes and tooling that had not migrated to the affected code path correctly rejected the transaction as malformed.  That single disagreement over validation split the network. Stake pool operators running buggy versions extended the poisoned chain, while operators on older software extended the healthy one.  Ouroboros, Cardano’s proof-of-stake protocol, instructs each validator to follow the heaviest valid chain it observes, but “valid” had two different definitions depending on which node version processed the transaction.  The result was a live partition: both branches continued producing blocks under normal consensus rules, but they diverged from a common ancestor and could not reconcile without manual intervention.  The pattern had appeared on Cardano’s Preview testnet the day before, triggered by nearly identical delegation logic.  That testnet incident alerted engineers to the bug in a low-stakes environment. Still, the fix had not yet propagated to mainnet when a former stake-pool operator, who later claimed he followed AI-generated instructions, submitted the same malformed transaction to the production network.  Within hours, the chain had split, and infrastructure providers faced the question of which fork to treat as canonical.  Safe failure without a kill switch Cardano’s partition resolved itself through voluntary upgrades rather than emergency coordination. Intersect and core developers shipped patched versions of node, 10.5.2 and 10.5.3, which correctly rejected the malformed transaction and rejoined the healthy chain.  As stake pool operators and exchanges adopted the patches, the weight of consensus gradually tipped back toward a single ledger.  By the end of Nov. 21, the network had converged, and the poisoned branch was abandoned.  The incident exposed an uncomfortable gap: two canonical ledgers existed simultaneously, but several boundaries prevented it from cascading into a deep reorganization or permanent loss of finality.  First, the bug lived in application-layer validation logic, not in Cardano’s cryptographic primitives or Ouroboros’ chain-selection rules. Signature checks and stake weighting continued to operate normally. The disagreement centered solely on whether the delegation transaction met ledger validity conditions.  Second, the partition was asymmetric. Many critical actors, including older stake pool operators and some exchanges, ran software that rejected the bad transaction, ensuring substantial stake weight remained behind the healthy chain from the start.  Third, Cardano had pre-positioned a disaster-recovery plan under CIP-135, which documented a process for coordinating around a canonical chain in more extreme scenarios.  Intersect is prepared to invoke that plan as a fallback, but voluntary upgrades proved sufficient to restore consensus under normal Ouroboros rules.  The narrow scope of the bug also mattered. The flaw affected a specific hash deserialization routine for delegation transactions, a bounded attack surface that could be patched and closed without requiring broader protocol changes.  Once fixed, the exploit path disappeared, and no generalizable class of malformed transactions remained available to trigger future splits.
74
Compartido
1.2k
Vistas
Compartir en TwitterCompartir en LinkedInCompartir en WhatsApp

El 21 de noviembre, Cardano vivió uno de los episodios más críticos desde su lanzamiento: una bifurcación en vivo de su mainnet que dividió la cadena en dos historias incompatibles durante más de catorce horas. Un único staking-delegation certificate malformado, enviado a través de una transacción diseñada para activar un bug dormido en versiones recientes del software, fue suficiente para desencadenar uno de los eventos más estudiados de seguridad y gobernanza blockchain en 2025.

La falla no produjo pérdidas de fondos ni parálisis completa, pero puso al ecosistema frente a una situación que rara vez se observa en un entorno productivo: dos cadenas válidas desde la perspectiva de nodos distintos, producidas simultáneamente, sin un mecanismo centralizado que actuara como juez inmediato.

Mientras operadores de stake pools debatían en tiempo real en qué rama confiar, intercambios suspendían temporalmente depósitos y retiros de ADA, y herramientas de exploración mostraban saldos inconsistentes, el equipo de desarrollo aceleró un parche que permitió la reunificación de la red.

Entérate de todo del acontecer cripto! 🚀 Síguenos en X: @cripto_t

Un bug latente reescribe el debate sobre validación y diversidad de clientes

Intersect, organismo de gobernanza del ecosistema, rastreó la raíz del incidente a un error de deserialización en el manejo de hashes dentro de certificados de delegación, introducido en 2022 pero hasta ahora inactivo.

Cuando la transacción malformada llegó al mempool de la red, dos comportamientos incompatibles emergieron:

¡Únete a nuestro grupo de Telegram en CriptoTendencias.com y mantente al tanto de las últimas noticias y tendencias en el mundo de las criptomonedas!

  • Nodos recientes (10.3.x – 10.5.1): aceptaron la transacción como válida.

  • Nodos más antiguos o no migrados: la rechazaron correctamente.

La consecuencia fue inmediata:
los nodos con software divergente tomaron decisiones de validación distintas, creando dos cadenas que seguían produciendo bloques conforme a las reglas de Ouroboros… pero con definiciones distintas de “válido”.

El día previo, esta misma situación había ocurrido en la preview testnet, pero el parche aún no estaba desplegado en mainnet cuando un exoperador —que luego alegó haber seguido “instrucciones generadas por IA”— replicó el ataque en producción.

Charles Hoskinson confirmó que notificó al FBI y a otras autoridades, dado que emitir intencionalmente una transacción capaz de fragmentar una infraestructura financiera de alcance global puede considerarse una interferencia ilícita bajo el marco del Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Una red que no cayó, pero que dejó de ser única por horas

Cardano nunca se “apagó”: la producción de bloques continuó en ambas ramas.
Lo que sí perdió temporalmente fue unicidad, una propiedad crítica para blockchains de capa 1.

La recuperación mostró tres factores que evitaron una catástrofe mayor:

1. El bug estaba en la capa de validación, no en el protocolo base

Ouroboros siguió funcionando correctamente.
El desacuerdo residía solo en una verificación de datos dentro del libro contable.

2. Una porción significativa de stake seguía en la cadena “sana”

Muchos operadores importantes aún utilizaban versiones previas del nodo, lo que mantuvo una rama con suficiente peso de consenso para competir.

3. Existía un plan de emergencia documentado (CIP-135)

Aunque no se activó, el ecosistema tenía ya un procedimiento para coordinar una ruta de salida en caso de particiones mayores.

Cuando se publicaron los nodos corregidos (10.5.2 y luego 10.5.3), la mayoría de operadores comenzó a migrar, y la red recuperó una sola historia común.
La cadena “envenenada” quedó definitivamente abandonada.

¿Qué implica este incidente para el futuro de Cardano?

El evento ha reavivado debates que otras comunidades ya han vivido:

  • Ethereum insiste en la diversidad de clientes precisamente para evitar que un solo bug divida a toda la red.

  • Solana, al contrario, ha preferido detener completamente la red cuando un único cliente falla.

  • Cardano parece situarse ahora entre ambos: no se detuvo, pero tampoco mostró inmunidad real a bugs distribuidos por versión.

Lo ocurrido deja varias conclusiones:

✔️ Cardano resistió, pero por poco.

La red mostró resiliencia operativa, aunque la bifurcación expuso un riesgo sistémico.

✔️ El incentivo por diversidad de clientes aumentará.

Hasta hoy, Cardano funciona esencialmente como un ecosistema monocliente.

✔️ Las auditorías de validación y migración de nodos serán prioritarias.

Un bug dormido durante años demostró que el riesgo puede emerger de rutas de ejecución poco usadas.

Para minería en solitario: Minero SOLO SATOSHI de 1.2TH/s y busca esa recompensa por solo USD 199... hecho en Estados Unidos

¡Únete GRATIS a Binance ahora! 💥 Ahorra en comisiones para siempre y maximiza tus ganancias en criptomonedas. 🌟 ¡Regístrate hoy y lleva tus inversiones al siguiente nivel!.

Tags: cardano
Entrada anterior

Polymarket obtiene luz verde de EE. UU. y reconfigura el sector

Próxima publicación

El enorme movimiento de Bitcoin de Coinbase desató alarmas injustificadas: qué ocurrió realmente

Próxima publicación
El enorme movimiento de Bitcoin de Coinbase desató alarmas injustificadas: qué ocurrió realmente

El enorme movimiento de Bitcoin de Coinbase desató alarmas injustificadas: qué ocurrió realmente

Publicidad

Entradas recientes

  • El enorme movimiento de Bitcoin de Coinbase desató alarmas injustificadas: qué ocurrió realmente
  • On Nov. 21, Cardano’s mainnet bifurcated into two competing histories after a single malformed staking-delegation transaction exploited a dormant bug in newer node software. For roughly 14 and a half hours, stake pool operators and infrastructure providers watched as blocks piled up on two separate chains: one “poisoned” branch that accepted the invalid transaction and one “healthy” branch that rejected it. Exchanges paused ADA flows, wallets showed conflicting balances, and developers raced to ship patched node versions that would reunify the ledger under a single canonical history. No funds vanished, and the network never fully halted. Still, for half a day, Cardano lived the scenario Ethereum’s client-diversity advocates warn about: a consensus split triggered by software disagreement rather than an intentional fork. Cardano co-founder Charles Hoskinson said he alerted the FBI and “relevant authorities” after a former stake-pool operator admitted broadcasting the malformed delegation transaction. Law enforcement’s role here is to investigate possible criminal interference with a protected computer network, under statutes like the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, since deliberately (or recklessly) pushing an exploit to a live, interstate financial infrastructure can constitute unauthorized disruption, even if framed as “testing.” The incident offers a rare natural experiment in how layer-1 blockchains handle validation failures. Cardano preserved liveness, blocks kept coming, but sacrificed temporary uniqueness, creating two legitimate-looking chains that had to be merged back together. Solana, by contrast, has repeatedly chosen the opposite trade-off: when its single client hits a fatal bug, the network halts outright and restarts under coordinated human intervention. Ethereum aims to sit between those extremes by running multiple independent client implementations, betting that no single codebase can drag the entire validator set onto an invalid chain. Cardano’s split and the speed with which it resolved test whether a monolithic architecture with version skew can approximate the safety properties of genuine multi-client redundancy, or whether it simply got lucky. The bug and the partition Intersect, Cardano’s ecosystem governance body, traced the failure to a legacy deserialization bug in hash-handling code for delegation certificates. The flaw entered the codebase in 2022 but remained dormant until new execution paths exposed it in node versions 10.3.x through 10.5.1. When a malformed delegation transaction carrying an oversized hash hit the mempool around 08:00 UTC on Nov. 21, newer nodes accepted it as valid and built blocks on top of it. Older nodes and tooling that had not migrated to the affected code path correctly rejected the transaction as malformed. That single disagreement over validation split the network. Stake pool operators running buggy versions extended the poisoned chain, while operators on older software extended the healthy one. Ouroboros, Cardano’s proof-of-stake protocol, instructs each validator to follow the heaviest valid chain it observes, but “valid” had two different definitions depending on which node version processed the transaction. The result was a live partition: both branches continued producing blocks under normal consensus rules, but they diverged from a common ancestor and could not reconcile without manual intervention. The pattern had appeared on Cardano’s Preview testnet the day before, triggered by nearly identical delegation logic. That testnet incident alerted engineers to the bug in a low-stakes environment. Still, the fix had not yet propagated to mainnet when a former stake-pool operator, who later claimed he followed AI-generated instructions, submitted the same malformed transaction to the production network. Within hours, the chain had split, and infrastructure providers faced the question of which fork to treat as canonical. Safe failure without a kill switch Cardano’s partition resolved itself through voluntary upgrades rather than emergency coordination. Intersect and core developers shipped patched versions of node, 10.5.2 and 10.5.3, which correctly rejected the malformed transaction and rejoined the healthy chain. As stake pool operators and exchanges adopted the patches, the weight of consensus gradually tipped back toward a single ledger. By the end of Nov. 21, the network had converged, and the poisoned branch was abandoned. The incident exposed an uncomfortable gap: two canonical ledgers existed simultaneously, but several boundaries prevented it from cascading into a deep reorganization or permanent loss of finality. First, the bug lived in application-layer validation logic, not in Cardano’s cryptographic primitives or Ouroboros’ chain-selection rules. Signature checks and stake weighting continued to operate normally. The disagreement centered solely on whether the delegation transaction met ledger validity conditions. Second, the partition was asymmetric. Many critical actors, including older stake pool operators and some exchanges, ran software that rejected the bad transaction, ensuring substantial stake weight remained behind the healthy chain from the start. Third, Cardano had pre-positioned a disaster-recovery plan under CIP-135, which documented a process for coordinating around a canonical chain in more extreme scenarios. Intersect is prepared to invoke that plan as a fallback, but voluntary upgrades proved sufficient to restore consensus under normal Ouroboros rules. The narrow scope of the bug also mattered. The flaw affected a specific hash deserialization routine for delegation transactions, a bounded attack surface that could be patched and closed without requiring broader protocol changes. Once fixed, the exploit path disappeared, and no generalizable class of malformed transactions remained available to trigger future splits.
  • Polymarket obtiene luz verde de EE. UU. y reconfigura el sector
  • Wall Street frena a Strategy pese a su imperio Bitcoin
  • MSCI sacude a las empresas que usan Bitcoin como tesorería: ¿cambian las reglas del juego?

Síguenos en X

¿Qué es el staking de criptomonedas y cómo ganar ingresos pasivos en Web3? - 2025 https://t.co/ytA0xc8Vaf pic.twitter.com/1TsmzbLtqV

— CriptoTendencias (@cripto_t) September 2, 2025
  • Contáctanos
  • Publicidad
  • Nosotros

© 2022 Criptotendencias.com - SEO & Web Consultor SEO.

Sin resultado
Ver todos los resultados
  • Home
  • Actualidad
  • Bitcoin
  • Blockchain
  • Base de conocimiento
  • Podcast
  • Publicidad
  • Opinión
  • Contáctanos
  • Autor invitado

© 2022 Criptotendencias.com - SEO & Web Consultor SEO.