Pith. sign in

BRC20 Pinning Attack

1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.

1 Pith paper citing it
abstract

BRC20 tokens are a type of non-fungible asset on the Bitcoin network. They allow users to embed customised content within Bitcoin's satoshis. The token frenzy reached a market size of US\$2.811\,b (2023Q3--2025Q1). However, this intuitive design has not undergone serious security scrutiny. We present the first analysis of BRC20's \emph{transfer} mechanism and identify a new attack vector. A typical BRC20 transfer involves two "bundled" on-chain transactions with different fee levels: the first (i.e., \textbf{Tx1}) with a lower fee inscribes the \textsf{transfer} request, while the second (i.e., \textbf{Tx2}) with a higher fee finalizes the actual transfer. An adversary can send a manipulated fee transaction (falling between the two fee levels), which causes \textbf{Tx1} to be processed while \textbf{Tx2} is pinned in the mempool. This locks BRC20 liquidity and disrupts normal withdrawal requests from users. We term this the \emph{BRC20 pinning attack}. We validated the attack in real-world settings in collaboration with Binance researchers. With their knowledge and permission, we conducted a controlled test against Binance's ORDI hot wallet, resulting in a temporary suspension of ORDI withdrawals for 3.5 hours. Recovery was performed shortly after. Further analysis confirms that the attack can be applied to over \textbf{90\%} of inscription-based tokens within the Bitcoin ecosystem.

citation-role summary

background 1

citation-polarity summary

fields

cs.CR 1

years

2025 1

verdicts

REJECT 1

roles

background 1

polarities

unclear 1

representative citing papers

BRC20 Snipping Attack

cs.CR · 2025-01-21 · reject · novelty 3.0

BRC20 transfers over PSBT are claimed to be front-runnable via higher-fee transaction replacement, but the regtest validation does not actually demonstrate the attack.

citing papers explorer

Showing 1 of 1 citing paper.

  • BRC20 Snipping Attack cs.CR · 2025-01-21 · reject · none · ref 29 · internal anchor

    BRC20 transfers over PSBT are claimed to be front-runnable via higher-fee transaction replacement, but the regtest validation does not actually demonstrate the attack.