Quote from: hugeblack on Today at 11:37:58 AM

I thought that refunding process was automatic, extra coins would be sent again to the same input address/es, with fees deducted, but it seems that the mining pool verifies the owner of the address and may return the funds to a new address which brings us into this story

many people dont re-use addresses. and so putting funds back to the coin that spent it may mean coins are lost forever if the sender deleted old wallet keys.. so ensuring sender still has access to keys is a must these days..

als some spenders are not using their keys and instead sometimes is a CEX hot wallet which means the fund dont go to a user but to a hot wallet which may not know where these coins came from. thus ensuring whomever lost coins makes a valid claim ensure they know what they are getting back and why its being sent back

Quote from: hugeblack on Today at 11:37:58 AM

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 01:05:40 AM

the victim didnt own the address that spent 83btc in fee's.. the victim was a few taints before that spend
the hacker then sold/gave the now empty wallet seed of 'bc1qn3d7vy..' to someone else(op) or the OP is the hacker

In this way, the refund process will require more time and effort.

well antpool just needs to make a plea to the addresses that held the ~139btc value before the hack.. basically asking for a signed message from:
one with bc1q8qz322m5gu4faemeumzkxeqhd4r4439y42ps3r 99.24875663 BTC ( 3,847,366.97 USD )
one with bc1qd6nn3734nkxlktseawn27xp2cw4ruy2ecz9hk9 40.17625999 BTC ( 1,557,428.23 USD )

why by the 83btc fee could then be split 99:40 or more precisely 59btc:24btc respectively