is not given explicitly, but we have a placeholder:

tags. The rest is meta commentary. So we need to translate the article content as it is, but the article itself is about 250 words. However, the instruction says "The content should be 450-700 words." That might be a requirement for the translation? Or it's part of the original content? Let's examine the original content: It starts with: "ORIGINAL TITLE: should be news-like. The content should be 450-700 words. We" Then it has the article content. Then after the article, it says: "That's about 250 words. We need 450-700. So we need to expand a bit." This is not part of the article; it's the author's note. So we should ignore that and translate the article as it is. The article itself is about 250 words. But the instruction says "Translate this article to Malay (ms)." So we translate the article content exactly. We don't need to expand it. The note about 450-700 words is not part of the translation. Thus, we will translate the article content provided within the

tags. The article has a title? No, it has subheads. The main title is not given. We need to create a title for the JSON output. The original title is not provided, so we can create a suitable one in Malay based on the content. For example: "Transaksi Bitcoin Membayar Yuran $102,778" or something. Also, we need to translate the meta description. Since it's not given, we can create one. Let's proceed. We'll translate the article content into Malay, preserving HTML structure. We'll use appropriate Malay terminology for crypto/tech terms. For example, "Bitcoin" stays, "transaction" -> "transaksi", "fee" -> "yuran" or "fi", but "yuran" is common. "Replace-by-Fee" might be kept as is or translated? We can say "Ganti-dengan-Yuran" but it's a technical term, so we might keep it as "Replace-by-Fee" with explanation. But the instruction says "Use appropriate Malay terminology for crypto/tech terms." So we can translate "Replace-by-Fee" as "Ganti-dengan-Yuran" but it might not be standard. Perhaps we keep it as "RBF" or explain. Let's see. We'll translate the content sentence by sentence. Original article:

for subheads. We'll also include the lead as first paragraph. Let's count words roughly. We'll write:
A Bitcoin transaction confirmed on August 12 paid 1.60 BTC in network fees—worth roughly $102,778—and delivered zero coins to anyone. The sender's automated script used Replace-by-Fee to bump the fee once per second until it consumed the entire input. SpiderPool mined the block and pocketed the windfall.

How the fee ran away

The sender ran an automated script that used Replace-by-Fee to bump fees, raising the bid once per second until it swallowed the entire input. The final version of the transaction left nothing for the recipient, so the payment landed at zero. Bitcoin nodes accepted it because the protocol doesn't cap fees. The transaction had a single input of 160,343,885 satoshis—about 1.6 BTC—and that entire amount went to fees.

A timely windfall for SpiderPool

SpiderPool mined block 962,142 and collected the fees. Across that block, fees totaled about 1.82 BTC, meaning this single error supplied 88% of them. The timing is fortunate: Bitcoin miners have seen revenue slump, with miners leaving the network at a record pace. A former leader of mining pools filed for bankruptcy in July, making the windfall timely for pools.

How to avoid a runaway fee

Three settings can prevent this kind of mistake: switch off automatic RBF bumping, set a hard fee ceiling, and send a test payment. The episode echoes the Coldcard wallet hack, where victims lost everything despite good practice. Binance founder Changpeng Zhao argued that no wallet is bulletproof.

The transaction is now permanent on the blockchain, and the fee is unrecoverable. Whether the sender will adjust their script settings remains an open question.

How the fee ran away

A timely windfall for SpiderPool

How to avoid a runaway fee

Related Articles