620,000 Fake Bitcoins: The Bithumb Glitch Exposed

by

In the glowless corridors where numbers pretend to be truth, Bithumb’s machines spoke with a mechanical certainty that astonishes no one and yet aches everyone. A fault crawled through the wires and counted 620,000 Bitcoin that never existed on the blockchain, as if digits could conjure reality by sheer repetition.

A technical failure, not a man’s slip, the report said. The phrase sits like a cold joke in a courtroom: the system designed to guard trust has learned to miscount with the elegance of a winter wind. The error was not a rebellion of souls, but a fault in the architecture that binds ledger to ledger, a sly reminder that even iron can dream up its own illusions.

Internal Ledger Error Created Non-Existent Bitcoin

Bithumb acknowledged that a malfunction allowed its internal ledger to tally Bitcoin without blockchain backing. The numbers walked through the system as if they had always belonged there, only to be revealed as tourists in a city that does not admit them. Entries existed on the screen; they did not exist in the living network beyond it.

At the time, the company held about 175 Bitcoin on its books and roughly 42,619 Bitcoin in customer wallets on-chain. Yet the internal ledger sang of an additional 620,000, a chorus that did not accord with the song the blockchain would approve.

The exchange halted withdrawals tied to the false balances and paused trading once the discrepancy appeared, as if the building itself could sense something unearned lurking in the walls. Reconciliation later confirmed: the assets lived only within the records, not in the real world of the chain.

🚨 BITHUMB MADE 620,000 FAKE BITCOIN?!

On Friday, a system glitch let Bithumb distribute 620,000 that never existed on the blockchain.

The exchange only had 175 on its own books and 42,619 BTC for customers, yet its ledger treated fake coins as real.

South Korean…

– Coin Bureau

Lawmakers Describe Structural System Failure

From the seats of policy, lawmakers assessed the wreckage and found it less a misstep and more a fault line in the system. The infrastructure of a marketplace where orders meet ledgers should not permit assets to bloom without the blockchain’s assent. The scale of the discrepancy demanded questions about investor protection and the stubborn stubbornness of design that refuses to see itself clearly.

During a briefing, one legislator called the case a sign that verification systems are flawed at their very core. The exchange’s dance between internal balances and on-chain data raised a simple, brutal inquiry: where are the guards, and who is watching the watchmen?

Regulators noted that safeguards should detect mismatches earlier and that the old rule-clear separation of company assets and customer funds-must be more than a slogan spoken in the lobby. The affair could prompt tougher technical standards for exchanges, not as a sermon but as a rule written in real time on a chalkboard that does not forget.

Related Reading: Bithumb Recovers $40B in Bitcoin After Historic Airdrop Mistake

Regulators Begin On-Site Inspections and Review Sanctions

The Financial Services Commission and related agencies have moved into Bithumb’s rooms of accounts and code. On-site inspections probe wallet management systems, accounting controls, and risk monitoring tools, while officials assess whether reporting duties were met with honesty or a hollow smile.

Possible sanctions hang in the air-fines or operational directives-yet the verdict will depend on what the inspectors discover and how the system’s fabric tears under scrutiny. Authorities insist that exchanges must maintain precise, real-time asset records, not tidy illusions crafted by a clever bug born of design flaws.

In a climate of tightening oversight, the regulator’s eye sharpens toward blockchain-backed verification as if it were the one lamp in a dark corridor. Expect further updates as inspections unfold and the machinery of oversight clicks into place.

Read More

2026-02-09 06:55