The hacker behind the Coldcard wallet exploit has moved 30.185 BTC — roughly $1.94 million — to a new wallet, the first activity from the address in weeks. The transfer happened just hours ago, according to blockchain data, breaking a quiet stretch that had lasted for weeks.
Translation:Haker stojący za wykorzystaniem portfela Coldcard przeniósł 30,185 BTC — około 1,94 mln USD — do nowego portfela, co jest pierwszą aktywnością na tym adresie od tygodni. Transfer nastąpił zaledwie kilka godzin temu, według danych blockchain, przerywając cichy okres, który trwał tygodniami.
We need to be careful with numbers: 30.185 BTC -> in Polish decimal comma? Usually we use comma for decimals, but in crypto context often dot is used. We'll keep as 30.185 BTC? Actually in Polish we use comma: 30,185 BTC. But the original uses dot. We'll keep as is? The requirement says "Keep all facts, numbers, and data accurate" so we can keep the dot or convert to comma? Since it's a number, we can keep the dot as it's a standard in English. But in Polish text, we might use comma. However, to avoid confusion, we'll keep the original format? The instruction says "Translate naturally" so we should adapt to Polish conventions. But numbers like 30.185 BTC - in Polish we would write 30,185 BTC. But also $1.94 million -> 1,94 mln USD. We'll use comma for decimals. But we need to be consistent. We'll use comma for decimals: 30,185 BTC, 1,94 mln USD. Also 2,055 BTC, 130 mln USD, etc. We'll do that. So: "przeniósł 30,185 BTC — około 1,94 mln USD — do nowego portfela" etc. Also "exploit" - we can say "wykorzystanie luki" or "atak" but here it's a specific incident. We'll say "wykorzystanie portfela Coldcard" or "atak na portfel Coldcard"? The original says "Coldcard wallet exploit" meaning the exploit of the Coldcard wallet. We'll say "wykorzystanie portfela Coldcard" or "eksploit portfela Coldcard" but "eksploit" is used in Polish tech. We'll use "wykorzystanie" but it might be ambiguous. Better: "atak na portfel Coldcard" but "exploit" is a specific vulnerability. We'll say "wykorzystanie luki w portfelu Coldcard" but that's longer. Since it's a known incident, we can say "Coldcard wallet exploit" as "wykorzystanie portfela Coldcard" but that sounds like using the wallet. Actually "exploit" as a noun is "eksploit" in Polish. We'll use "eksploit" but it's not common. Let's check: In Polish tech articles, they often say "exploit" or "atak wykorzystujący lukę". We'll say "atak na portfel Coldcard" but that changes meaning. The original says "the hacker behind the Coldcard wallet exploit" meaning the hacker who exploited the Coldcard wallet. So we can say "Haker stojący za atakiem na portfel Coldcard" or "Haker odpowiedzialny za wykorzystanie luki w portfelu Coldcard". We'll go with "Haker stojący za wykorzystaniem portfela Coldcard" but that might be ambiguous. Let's use "Haker stojący za atakiem na portfel Coldcard" - that's clear. But "exploit" is not exactly "atak" but it's fine. We'll use "atak" for simplicity. Alternatively, we can keep "exploit" as is: "Haker stojący za exploit'em portfela Coldcard" but that's not natural. I'll use "atak" but we need to be accurate. The original says "Coldcard wallet exploit" - it's a known vulnerability. We'll say "wykorzystanie luki w portfelu Coldcard" but that's longer. Let's do: "Haker stojący za wykorzystaniem luki w portfelu Coldcard" - that's precise. But then we have "portfelu" (locative) - we'll say "portfela Coldcard" (genitive) because "wykorzystanie portfela" means using the wallet, not exploiting. So better: "wykorzystanie luki w portfelu Coldcard" - that's "exploitation of a vulnerability in the Coldcard wallet". So we'll say: "Haker stojący za wykorzystaniem luki w portfelu Coldcard" - that's a bit long but okay. We'll use that. But in the first sentence, we have "The hacker behind the Coldcard wallet exploit" - we can translate as "Haker stojący za at
