与「mist」相关的搜索结果

Originally, I didn’t want to comment publicly on all of the drama. However, once there were multiple lies and false or exaggerated accusations, I felt I had no choice but to clear my name and state the facts with evidence so that we can put this issue to rest. Regarding the issue with C Ye at Venetian — the post below includes a link to a video from Xuan Liu, who is very reputable in the poker community and was there with me at the time. She can confirm that the floor staff told us they had checked the surveillance footage, and that the amount of chips C Ye actually had at the end of the game was different from the amount she reported to us. People have asked what C Ye’s motivation could have been for misreporting. I can’t say for sure, but I do know that in the days leading up to June 7, she was on a huge downswing across private games, HCL, and baccarat — easily over $100K of her own money. We also later got in touch with someone at the Venetian, who checked their internal records for us and found a record related to the surveillance inquiry. The record shows that the report was reviewed on June 21 at approximately 11:03 PM, and there is an internal report number associated with it. I also have additional evidence supporting my account that Venetian security did in fact help me review the surveillance footage. However, I gave my word that this material would never be shared publicly, and I intend to honor that. That said, we are willing to share the original materials privately with well-respected and credible members of the poker community who genuinely want to review the evidence. If that applies to you, feel free to DM me. Because these materials contain internal Venetian information and involve staff who helped us, we will not post them publicly. We don’t want anyone at the Venetian getting in trouble for helping us. C Ye tweeted that she put all of her chips in my bag ($187K). Venetian told Xuan that C Ye made a cage transaction for $106K after the game. That would explain where the rest of the chips went. Further, attached is a video from Jeff the Cash, who was there that day and says he personally saw chips being taken off the table. Jeff is a very reputable high-stakes player and is willing to publicly speak about what he personally witnessed. Regarding Wesley’s story — attached is a video from Aussie Alan confirming that I never owed anyone money and that Wesley’s allegations aren’t true. Alan also spoke directly with L, the person referenced in Wesley’s post. L apologized to Alan and said that Wesley using his name without his approval was very wrong, especially when what Wesley was saying was not factually correct. The chat confirming this is attached below. Charles, a well-known and reputable player on HCL who was mentioned in Wesley’s story, is also willing to publicly confirm on X that Wesley’s allegations against me are not true. Charles was at the table that day and can confirm two things: first, he had bought action in Hank; and second, Hank did in fact secretly take chips off the table. Charles is willing to speak publicly about what he personally knows and witnessed. Lastly, I want to make it clear that Ryan and HCL had no knowledge of me buying pieces of other players. I understand now that this can create a conflict of interest in certain games, but at the time, I sometimes bought action because I wanted to help younger players who might not otherwise have been able to play in those games. Going forward, I will not do it again. I’m not perfect. I’ve made some mistakes, but never out of a lack of integrity. Things get heated and words get thrown around when poker players are no longer welcome in or able to access games they want to play. Take the evidence below as you wish and decide for yourself. I just wanted one last opportunity to put all of this information and evidence out there, clear things up, and hopefully put this issue to rest once and for all.

MistTrack: Bitget Exploiter Attempted to Route Stolen Funds via Chainflip but Broker Rejected According to on-chain monitoring by SlowMist's tracking arm MistTrack, the Bitget exploiter attempted to move stolen funds through the cross-chain liquidity protocol Chainflip, but the transaction was rejected at the broker interface ("deposit rejected by the broker"). The protocol did not freeze the capital but instead refunded the deposit directly back to the sender, effectively preventing the attacker from routing the exploit proceeds through the network.

On chain investigation made simple by MistTrack Agent powered by @SlowMist_Team available now on @FinchTechCN Drop a wallet address or tx hash into MistTrack Agent and let it trace fund flows, map connections, and flag potential risks in seconds.

这个开源项目系统整理了 35 家 AI 公司的 AI 工程师面试题，全部来自 “公开报告的面试经历” 来自 @outcome_school 团队 @pallavishekhar_ 开源发布，内容几乎涵盖了 OpenAI、Anthropic、DeepMind、xAI、DeepSeek、Kimi、GLM 等 AI Labs，Cursor、Cognition、ElevenLabs 等 AI Native 团队和 Nvidia、Microsoft、Amazon、Apple 等头部大厂。 覆盖的岗位头衔也非常多：AI Engineer、LLM Engineer、Gen AI Engineer、ML Engineer、Research Engineer、Applied Scientist、FDE、MLOps/LLMOps 工程师等。 开源地址： # 内容架构：一个精心设计的双层结构 第一层：跨公司通用题（Common Questions）。 作者把在多家公司反复出现的题目只列一次，标注"Asked at"哪些公司，按十大主题组织： 1. LLM 内部机制与架构 — attention 缩放因子、KV cache 内存公式推导、MQA/GQA/MLA、FlashAttention、BPE、RoPE/YaRN、Chinchilla scaling laws、MoE、解码采样策略、lost-in-the-middle、RMSNorm、SwiGLU 2. 推理、服务与 GPU 性能 — prefill vs decode、continuous batching、PagedAttention、投机解码、量化（FP16→FP4）、五种并行策略、TTFT/TPOT 指标、H100 上的 roofline 计算、vLLM/SGLang/TensorRT-LLM 选型、“如何把服务成本降 10 倍” 3. RAG 与检索 — 分块策略、BM25 vs 稠密检索、重排序器、HyDE、权限感知检索、ANN 索引、索引新鲜度、答案归因 4. Agent 与工具调用 — ReAct、MCP、工具 schema 设计、多智能体编排、Agent 记忆、循环终止条件、人类审批 5. 微调与对齐 — RLHF/DPO/GRPO/RLVR 全谱系、LoRA/QLoRA 数学、灾难性遗忘、“提示 vs RAG vs 微调”决策框架、蒸馏、reward hacking 6. 评估与可观测性 — LLM-as-judge 及其偏差、幻觉检测、基准污染、Agent 评估、回归门禁 7. 安全与负责任 AI — 提示注入（直接/间接）、OWASP LLM Top 10、护栏、Constitutional AI、红队 8. 多模态与语音 — VLM、语音 Agent 延迟预算、barge-in 打断处理、级联 vs 端到端语音、ASR/TTS 评估 9. AI 系统设计 — 十类高频设计题（千万级文档企业 RAG、代码助手、客服 Agent、Text-to-SQL、LLM 网关、数亿用户聊天服务等） 10. 编码题 — 从零实现 attention、KV cache、BPE、采样；LRU 缓存、令牌桶限流器、异步批处理器、SSE 流解析器、最小 Agent 循环 第二层：35 家公司的专属章节，分为五大梯队： 1. 前沿实验室（12 家）：Anthropic、OpenAI、Google DeepMind、Meta、xAI、Mistral、Cohere、DeepSeek、月之暗面（Kimi）、智谱（GLM）、阿里（Qwen）、Sarvam AI（印度） 2. 大厂 AI 组织：Microsoft、Amazon、Apple、NVIDIA、Tesla，以及一组消费级 ML 公司（Uber/Netflix/LinkedIn/Airbnb/Pinterest/Spotify） 3. AI 基础设施公司：Databricks、Groq、Together AI、Hugging Face、Scale AI、Perplexity 4. AI 原生产品公司：Cursor、Cognition（Devin）、Sierra、Harvey（法律）、Glean、 AI（机器人）、Waymo 5. 前向部署/企业 AI：Palantir # 题目分布透露的行业信号同样值得关注 1. 公司的差异化考察方向，和它的商业模式严丝合缝。 这是最能体现整理功力的地方： · DeepSeek、月之暗面、智谱、Qwen 的题目深度绑定自家论文——MLA、auxiliary-loss-free 负载均衡、Multi-Token Prediction、MuonClip、DualPipe、长上下文扩展、GLM 的 thinking 模式。面试这些公司等于面试它们的论文，还要求 PyTorch 从零实现 MoE 路由。 · Groq 的题全是 SRAM-only 架构下的 roofline 重推演：“没有 HBM，decode 的 roofline 论证哪里变了”、“确定性在 p99 层面到底买到什么”。 · Apple 清一色端侧：3B 模型在手机上跑、PTQ vs QAT、不采集用户内容的前提下用设备信号改进模型、30+ 语言区无法记录用户内容的评估方案。 · CharacterAI 是推理经济学：“我们的服务成本被 KV cache 而非权重主导，降一个数量级，代价是什么”。 · Harvey（法律）和 Abridge（医疗） 考的是领域约束下的工程：200 页信贷协议里第 140 页的条款依赖第 8 页的定义术语怎么检索、生成的病历中出现了患者没提过的药怎么当作安全事故处理、PHI 如何约束整个架构。 · Palantir 的招牌是 "decomposition" 轮：把“一家货运铁路公司每年因机车非计划停机损失数千万”分解成工程计划。 2. 编码轮的形态正在发生实质性变化。 文档里反复出现的一类题，与传统 LeetCode 明显不同： · “实现一个内存 KV 存储：先 SET/GET/DELETE，再加事务 BEGIN/COMMIT/ROLLBACK，包括嵌套事务”（OpenAI、xAI 都问） · “给你一个 LLM 推理引擎的调度器类，其中一个方法是空壳，没有规格没有文档。说说你头三十分钟干什么”（xAI） “重构这 120 行能跑但很乱的代码，不许破坏测试”（OpenAI） · “对 5 万个文档跑 LLM 调用，API 限 100 并发、偶发 429 和超时，把 Python 写出来”（Anthropic） 考察重心从算法记忆转向增量需求下的代码演进能力、并发正确性、真实工程约束下的取舍。 3. “AI 协作轮”作为新题型已经进入正式面试流程。 这是文档里最前沿的信号： · Anthropic 部分机器学习岗有 AI-collaboration 轮：现场给你 Claude，考察的是你如何指挥它和验证它的产出，而不是你自己写。 · Meta 2026 年的流程新增三阶段 AI 辅助编码轮（探索修复 → 实现新功能 → 扩展改进）。 · Cursor 的 onsite 是两天在真实 Cursor 代码库上做一个功能（或 8 小时远程版），明确考核你对 AI 工具的使用效率和自主 scoping 能力。 · Sierra 给你两小时和任意 AI 工具，看你选择做什么。 xAI 有四小时限时产品构建。 4. FDE 成为一级岗位类别。 Anthropic、OpenAI、Databricks、Scale、Together、Sierra、Harvey、ElevenLabs、Palantir 的章节里都有 "Applied and Forward-Deployed Scenarios" 专属题库——典型题目如“企业客户说 Claude 幻觉太多，你是驻场工程师，头 48 小时做什么”。这对应了 AI 公司向企业交付方式的转变：模型能力差距收窄后，落地能力成为差异化。 5. 硬核系统题的普及。 "H100 上 70B 模型 batch size 1 的 roofline 计算"、"估算 70B 模型的 GPU 显存（权重 + KV cache + 激活 + 碎片）"、"p99 延迟在部署后翻倍但模型没变，走一遍诊断”——这类题横跨 NVIDIA、Together、OpenAI、Perplexity 等多家，说明推理性能的量化直觉已成为 AI 工程师的通用素养，而非基础设施工程师的专属。

Not every crypto scam involves hacking. Address poisoning attacks rely on lookalike wallet addresses and human error. A single copy-paste mistake can send funds to a scammer — and blockchain transactions can't be reversed. Learn how address poisoning works and how to protect yourself. 🛡️👇

The presumption that the Fed raising short-term rates reduces inflation is predicated on the belief that higher rates reduce demand and investment. But what if higher rates don’t reduce demand and investment because the demand for intelligence and energy is unaffected by higher rates because winning the race for super intelligence has a near infinite ROI and the demand for compute will remain incalculable. Why won’t higher rates at this unique moment in history therefore lead to more inflation as interest costs are embedded in everything? And the problem is compounded as the more the Fed raises rates, the more inflation we will have and the more the Fed will need to raise rates further and so on. But what if the old models don’t apply to the current paradigm and the Fed is wrong? I think the Fed might have just made a mistake. Am I right or am I wrong?

here's a prompt to improve your agent harness based on what we've learned at cursor. enjoy # Improve this agent harness's token efficiency You're working on an LLM agent harness: the system prompt, tool definitions, request assembly, context caching, compaction, and retrieval, and how work is split across agents. Make the agent's runs cheaper without making it worse at its job. - Objective: lower price-weighted token cost per completed task. - Constraint: no measurable drop in task quality. Measure per task, not per request. Every turn resends the prefix (tools, instructions, setup, and the conversation so far), so a change that shrinks each request but adds turns can cost more. Weight tokens by billing type: output, uncached input, and cached input are priced very differently. Work in this order: map the harness and measure the baseline, rank the opportunities, make the changes that are safe to make directly, put the rest behind flags or in proposals, then report. Figures below come from one team's production coding agent and its multi-agent experiments. Use them to gauge magnitude, not as targets. One round of these changes (prompt trimming, tool offloading, cache layout, sparse line numbers, subagent tuning) cut that team's overall token cost about 7% with no loss in quality. The larger percentages apply only to the part of the request each change touched. ## Principles 1. Change what the harness sends, not how hard the model tries. Don't ask the model to conserve tokens. A harness that told its model to "take care to preserve tokens and not be wasteful" found it grew reluctant to take on ambitious tasks and sometimes quit, saying it wasn't supposed to waste tokens. 2. Capable models need definitions, not commands. Lists of "DO NOT", "You must", and "Important", and guards against older models' habits, can usually be replaced with plain descriptions of what each tool does. One team cut about two-thirds of its system prompt this way, and the shorter prompt worked across model families. Instruct only on what the model can't know (the product, the environment, the user's processes) and on quirks you've seen in transcripts. 3. Static context is for what most turns need. Everything else should be discoverable when needed. Less up-front context also means less confusing or contradictory information. 4. Expect removals to win. Guardrails written for weaker models, coordination steps that became bottlenecks, and prompting for behavior the model now does on its own all cost tokens. 5. Real usage decides. Evals are a fast proxy, but they skew toward hard problems and miss the real mix of requests. ## 1. Map the harness and measure the baseline Find: - Where requests are assembled, the system prompt, and tool schemas. If a framework or SDK builds requests, find its hooks for message order, cache control, and tool loading. - How tool results are formatted, and how history is kept, trimmed, or summarized. - How subagents or parallel agents are spawned, if any. - Which models and provider APIs are used. From the provider's docs, get the prompt caching behavior (automatic or explicit breakpoints, TTL, minimum cacheable length) and the prices for output, uncached input, and cached input. - Existing logging, token accounting, and evals. If the harness doesn't record per-request token usage by billing type and cache hits, add that first. Everything later depends on it. Then render a few real requests (from logs, or by running representative tasks) and count tokens per section with the model's tokenizer or the API's usage fields. Produce: - Cost share by source × billing type. Sources: system prompt, tool definitions, skill/rule/integration descriptions, user messages, file reads, search results, command and other tool output, history, summaries, subagents. - Static tokens per request, cache hit rate, and turns per task. - Per tool: the share of runs that call it at least once, and its error rate. Read the rendered requests, not just the templates. Duplication, leaked volatile values, and misordered blocks only show up there. Rank opportunities by share of spend × fraction removable ÷ quality risk. ## 2. System prompt and injected context Label every instruction: - Keep: product or environment knowledge the model can't infer, fixes for quirks seen in this model's transcripts, and rules a mode depends on. - Rewrite: commands and emphasis into plain descriptions. Reminders into constraints: "No TODOs, no partial implementations" works better than "remember to finish implementations." Vague quantities into ranges: "generate 20–100 tasks" gets far more ambitious behavior than "generate many tasks." - Delete: things capable models do by default, guards against behavior you haven't seen from this model, text that repeats tool descriptions, and lines that could contradict a user request. Models trained to rank system instructions above user messages will side with the system prompt. - Move: anything per-user or per-request (date, environment, repo state, lists of skills or subagents, user rules) into a user-role setup message after the cache boundary. Audit other injected context the same way. As models improved, the team behind these figures dropped directory trees, pre-retrieved snippets, compressed copies of attached files, lint errors injected after every edit, forced expansion of short file reads, and caps on tool calls per turn. They kept small, high-value facts: OS, repo status, and open or recently viewed files. Skip checklists for open-ended work. The model optimizes the listed items and deprioritizes everything else. ## 3. Tool definitions Tool schemas ride along on every request. Most tools beyond the core set were each needed in under 20% of conversations, and moving them out of static context cut tool-description tokens 60%. Doing the same for integration tools (such as MCP servers), with names in context and full schemas in one folder per server that the agent can search with grep or jq, cut total tokens 46.9% in sessions that used them. - Keep in static context: high-frequency tools (for a coding agent: read, search, edit, shell), tools the model tries to call even when they're absent, and tools a mode depends on. - Offload the rest: leave a name or one-line pointer and make the full schema discoverable on demand. Group related tools so they load together, and put status (such as "needs re-authentication") where the agent will see it. - Tighten what remains: describe behavior and arguments, and drop usage lectures. - Pick the split by testing a few configurations and tracking tokens, cost, latency, tool-call errors, and task success. ## 4. Cache layout Order each request so the reusable prefix is as long as possible: `tool definitions → system instructions → [breakpoint] → setup message (skills, subagents, rules, environment) → [breakpoint] → conversation` - Keep the prefix byte-identical across turns. Use deterministic tool order and serialization, put timestamps and IDs after the boundary, and don't rewrite earlier messages except when compacting. - Use explicit breakpoints if the provider supports them. Otherwise rely on automatic prefix caching with the stable part first. Respect TTL and minimum-length rules. - Switching models mid-conversation throws away the cache (caches are per model and provider) and hands the new model a history it didn't write. When a different model is needed, run it as a subagent with fresh context. Explicit breakpoints plus moving per-request setup after them cut cold cache misses 20%. ## 5. Tool results and other context added during a run - Large outputs (commands, integrations, logs): write them to a file and return the path, size, and a short tail. The agent can tail, grep, or read ranges for more. Truncating loses data, and inlining bloats every later request. Treat long-running terminal sessions the same way. - High-volume formats: look for overhead repeated on every line or item. Numbering every 10th line of a file read instead of every line cut cache-read tokens 1.6% without hurting citation accuracy. Each number costs 3–5 tokens, and agents read tens of thousands of lines per session. Also check repeated absolute paths, verbose JSON keys, ANSI codes, progress bars, and repeated headers. - Good retrieval saves exploration turns. Adding semantic search alongside grep raised codebase question-answering accuracy 12.5% on average and cut the iterations users needed. - Tool errors waste tokens and leave confusing debris in context. Classify expected errors (invalid arguments, unexpected environment, provider error, timeout, user abort), treat unknown errors as harness bugs, and track rates per tool and per model. One focused effort along these lines cut unexpected tool errors 10×. ## 6. Long runs: compaction, subagents, and model mix - Compaction: keep the summarization prompt short and the summary compact, carry forward plan state and remaining tasks, and save the full history to a file the agent can search for details the summary dropped. A model trained to self-summarize from a one-line prompt wrote ~1k-token summaries with half the compaction error of a multi-thousand-token prompt that produced 5k+ token summaries. Untrained models may need more guidance, so test how short you can go. A more expensive summarization model made a negligible difference. - Scratchpads and running notes: rewrite them instead of appending. For repeated work in one environment, a small agent-maintained notes file with a line budget, loaded at start, is a promising way to shorten later runs. - Subagents: fresh context keeps the parent lean, but isolation adds coordination cost (duplicate or stale work). If the model already delegates on its own, remove prompting that pushes it to. Have subagents return short handoffs: what was done, findings, concerns, and deviations. A subagent should use a different model only when the user or harness says so. - Model mix: in large multi-agent runs, workers used at least 69% of tokens, and over 90% in most runs. A frontier planner with cheap workers matched a frontier model doing everything at about one-eighth the cost. Planner choice still changes worker spend. One planner that cost less on its own saw its workers use several times more tokens, and the run cost more overall. Measure the whole tree. - Routing and reasoning effort: send simple turns to a cheaper model or lower effort, and upgrade only when a stronger model is clearly better. A router built this way matched or beat single frontier models on user satisfaction at 41–68% lower cost. - Reasoning continuity: if the API returns reasoning items (including encrypted ones), pass them back on later turns and alert when they go missing. Dropping them cost one reasoning model 30% on a coding benchmark, and it burned tokens reconstructing its plan. ## 7. Fit the harness to each model Adapt to what each model was trained on instead of forcing one shape on all of them. If you've tuned the harness for a similar model, start from that version. - Edit format: use the one the model was trained on (for example, patch-style or search-and-replace). An unfamiliar format costs extra reasoning tokens and causes more mistakes. - Shell or tools: shell-first models fall back to `cat` or inline scripts. Name tools after their shell equivalents (such as `rg`), and if needed add: "If a tool exists for an action, prefer to use the tool instead of shell commands (e.g. read_file over `cat`)." - Literalness: some model families follow instructions literally and others tolerate imprecision. Some spiral on emphasized wording. Strip caps and emphasis for literal models. - Triggers: some models ignore a tool until told when to use it. A literal trigger works: "After substantive edits, use the to check recently edited files for linter errors. If you've introduced any, fix them if you can easily figure out how." - Progress updates: if a model reports progress through reasoning summaries, keep them to 1–2 sentences that note new findings or a change of tactic, and remove instructions about messaging mid-turn. - Quirks worth a targeted line: hedging or refusing as context fills ("context anxiety"), declaring completion early, stopping to ask permission, and calling tools that don't exist. Tie each added instruction to the transcript behavior it fixes. Re-audit when models change, since guidance one version needed can be dead weight for the next. ## 8. Validate - Offline: run a fixed set of realistic tasks before and after, ideally drawn from real usage and phrased the way users actually write (short and ambiguous). Compare task success, tokens, cost per task, turns, and tool errors. Don't ship a change that lowers success. - Online, if you have users: A/B test each change or small bundle. The primary metric is cost per completed task. Guardrails are task success signals, tool-call errors, latency, turns per task, and cache hit rate. For a coding agent, a good success signal is how much agent-written code survives over time. In general, check whether the user's next message moves on or reports a problem. - Ship only when cost drops and no guardrail regresses beyond noise. Record null results. ## What to change directly and what to propose - Change directly, each in its own revertible commit: token and cache telemetry, deterministic serialization and tool order, moving volatile content out of the cached prefix, explicit cache breakpoints, writing large outputs to files instead of truncating, passing back reasoning items that are being dropped, and fixes for recurring tool errors. - Change behind a flag so it can be tested: system prompt edits, tool offloading, output format changes, compaction changes, and subagent prompting. - Propose only: changes to which models run, routing, reasoning-effort defaults, or how work is split across agents. ## Traps - Asking the model to use fewer tokens or do less. - Truncating tool output. - Dropping reasoning items to save input tokens. - Volatile content in the cached prefix, or tool order that changes between requests. - Offloading a tool the model needs on the first turn or tries to call when it's missing. - Emphasis-heavy prompts (MUST, NEVER, IMPORTANT, all caps), especially with literal models. - Forcing a terser output format than the model was trained on. Fewer output tokens can mean less thinking and worse results. - Optimizing raw token counts instead of cost, per request instead of per task, or evals instead of real usage. - Switching models mid-conversation to save money. - Adding coordination layers that become bottlenecks. ## Report back with 1. The harness map and baseline: cost by source × billing type, with the biggest sources called out. 2. A ranked list of changes: layer, what changes, estimated savings and how you estimated them, quality risk, how to validate, and how to roll back. 3. The changes you made, including a system prompt diff with a keep, rewrite, delete, or move reason for each line. 4. A test plan for the flagged changes. 5. Gaps: anything you couldn't find or measure.

it's been a few days since i posted my thesis explaining that i am starting to turn bullish on the Solana ecosystem i.e. after seeing their leaders make cultural changes that i think will benefit the ecosystem long term as a result, i bought my first Solana ecosystem token in a long time today my next big bet is on $EMBER and its ecosystem i first saw this around $3m market cap yesterday and faded then i saw it pumping again and took a closer look and decided to topblast for a few reasons: 1. this is one of the most fundamentally superior launchpads in the space, both for pure token launches and meme/stock pairs 2. this is literally a Meteora launchpad, so as far as backing and resources goes it has everything to succeed 3. $PONS ($960m FDV ATH) and $STONK ($330m FDV ATH) have shown what is possible here, and i think EMBER is crazy undervalued where it is right now this easily goes to $100m+ IMO we'll see tbh i started buying around $7m and kept blasting until around $11m then i waited for a dip to buy more and it wouldn't come, so i decided to just topblast and ride it i look at my $PONS trade every once in a while and realized i could have bought 2x the supply i own at $9.1m when i increased my stake and didn't that mistake still hunts me to this day i'm not making the same mistake again

🚨 On September 6, 2026, @Liquid_BTC was affected by a cache key collision vulnerability in rangeproof verification. An attacker minted ~3,998.5 L-BTC with no corresponding peg-in. Within minutes, the unbacked L-BTC was pegged out into real BTC on the Bitcoin mainnet. About 3,400 BTC was later returned to the federation peg wallet, while ~598.5 BTC remains under the attacker’s control. The SlowMist Security Team traced the fund flows on the #Bitcoin# side using @MistTrack_io and fully analyzed the incident. 🧩 Attack flow: 1️⃣ Two setup transactions first landed valid rangeproofs and commitments, while embedding a crafted payload in the locking script to seed node caches. 2️⃣ A follow-up minting output reused a colliding cache key — the same raw concatenation of proof, commitment, asset commitment, and scriptPubKey, but with different field boundaries. 3️⃣ On a cache hit, nodes skipped secp256k1_rangeproof_verify and min-value checks, accepted an unbacked commitment, and minted ~3,998.5 L-BTC. The fake UTXOs were consolidated and pegged out within minutes. ⚙️ Root Cause: The Elements rangeproof cache key concatenated variable-length fields without length prefixes. Distinct argument tuples could hash to the same key, so a positive cache hit meant skipping cryptographic verification. 🛡️ SlowMist Insight: A positive-result cache in a consensus verification path is itself a cryptographic primitive. Every field the verifier reads — and every field boundary — must be unambiguously bound into the key. Treat cache-key integrity as a mandatory item in consensus-layer audits. Full analysis👇