Nothing new to me. I’ve received such scam tokens deposited into my multiple wallets (even cold storage) and I just simply ignored them. But back then, I could have almost fallen victim but good thing I took time to research and doing my due diligence.

You just simply do not claim them nor touching it. Just leave it as it is and nothing happens.

It is a bug, not an exploit, for sure it shouldn't be an intended implication of the developer's intent. This also should not be on purpose. Allowing a transaction to be accepted without user consent seriously harms the ecosystem. In the first place, things like this should be considered if they are aware of the current flawed implementation occurrence. Thus it makes no sense if the smart contract developers were allowing this to happen.

The OP lacks details explaining the question. According to my analysis, the scenario is like this (correct if you have another opinion):

First, the attacker steals your address's private key. (This is how he gets your token.) This is impossible.

Second, the attacker creates a transaction that transfers all of your tokens to his own address, which is similar to yours. (The attacker has now taken your token without giving you anything in return.)

In the third, the attacker sends a transaction of 0 tokens from your address to his own address. (This is what makes it look like you sent the token to the scammer yourself.)

This scam is different because it makes it seem like the token transfer came out of your wallet. At first you think your seed is compromised however when you look closer it seems like its some exploit, which it is.

And please explain to me why i can't find info on something even related to this or why no one is talking about this?

Can you also sign messages with other people's wallets while you are at it?

That's simply because people are often in a hurry while at it, during transactions. It's good to suspend everything one is doing during transaction. That's what I do. I'm never in a haste because I know once a mistake happens it's goodbye to my funds. I do take my time to check the first four/five letters of any copied wallet address I'm sending or withdrawing to. I do same for the middle and last four/five letters too. That's if the funds involved aren't much. If I'm doing a heavy transfer, I take my time to run a complete check from the first letter to the last before hitting the send or withdrawal tab. I'm conservative like that and I haven't regretted any bit of being conservative.

On-chain address poisoning attack is the newest wallet address attack which the attackers use in steal stable coins from their unsuspecting victims on both BSC and Ethereum network. In the attack, the victim unknowingly send funds to the attacker's address and over $1.6M stolen in that regard from December 2, 2022.
The details of the attack and how to prevent yourself from being a victim is here. https://rb.gy/tplvuv.

Seems like a very low effort low probability "attack" if you can even call it that. And someone hit a jackpot.

Ok, i would liket to see anyone proving this as it sounds absurd. Even asking this makes me sound like a fool but:

Can someone make transaction from this address to literally any address without having private key for that address?

And please explain to me why i can't find info on something even related to this or why no one is talking about this? Can you also sign messages with other people's wallets while you are at it?

Good, now use your superior intelligence to connect this:

https://metamask.io/1559

And this:



Now call me master!

Why you act like an asshole where some random guy trying to help you to figure out this phenomenon? That's a wonderful way to keep people from posting here.
If you are so smart, why you asked this question, and not figuring out by yourself. OMG people nowadays.

https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/blocks/

You are looking at the wrong metric smartass...

 

Probably it's not because of how many tx, but the computation power, thus you can have blocks near empty but they are resource hungry and congest the network.*

*It's only based on my common sense, it's like token transfer needs more gas than moving ETH, so probably minting and moving NFTs also require more gas.

I think that miners also have a role to play in all these, and hence the reason Ethereum team are trying their best to ensure all these issues like gas fee

Dapps and DeFis are the driving force of the gas price going so high in Ethereum economy. Every transaction is being charge and the gas fees rely on how many transactions are executing in the network and access rates are off the roof

The gas will be based on how crowded the blockchain and it will be also using the average fees in the network that will be determined from the all of transactions that already processed by the block/mempool.

People have been buying lots of NFTs and that has had an affect on gas prices. A lot of people have moved to Mintbase on NEAR protocol because the gas fees are lower and the amount of profit you get is higher. Opensea also works on Polygon.