Some yet to be identified hackers have spent over 465,000 ETC which worth about $1,700,000 on two different cryptocurrency exchanges in another Ethereum Classic attack.
A follow-up analysis conducted by renowned on-chain intelligence firm, Bitquery, revealed that the fund was converted into other digital assets on Bitfinex and other exchanges that are yet to be identified.
It is important to mention that a similar attack has been launched on the vulnerable coin on the 31st of July, but this time around the faceless hackers instead of sending ETC out of the exchanges to spend later rather sent in the coin into exchanges to convert into other digital assets.
The hackers, as revealed by Bitquery sent in Ethereum Classic into the exchanges and went on to mine their blocks after which they overwrite the transactions.
In the exploit which lasted for about 15 hours, Bitquery analysis shows that the mischievous hackers successfully spent about 143,000 ETC worth about $1,000,000 on Bitfinex while they spent about $680,000 worth of Ethereum Classic on the other exchange.
However, this attack which is referred to as to be the second hacks on the popular cryptocurrency network, according to crypto enthusiasts, shows a huge disregard for potential consequences that could have emerged from the July 31 hack, as data from Bitquery shows that the attackers had used the same methodology employed in the subsequent heist.
The only notable difference between the recent and previous hack was the source of the ETC which were sent and later deleted during the transaction, as the address which was the receiver of funds in the previous hack were the senders in the recent one.
The magnitude of the theft, rated as a 51% attack on ETC and a perceptible repeat of such heist, had triggered a mixture of reactions from crypto investors and traders to question the security decision of the ETC community, the Ethereum founder and creator, Vitalik Buterin, who also reacted suggested switching on to proof-of-stake by the ETC community.
Buterin explained that the risk associated with switching on to Proof-of-Stake consensus is incredibly less when compared to the risk of entertaining a continued attack.