How much was lost in the BASIC-MINING hack?

The BASIC-MINING hack resulted in $277K in losses on October 01, 2013.

What attack technique was used in the BASIC-MINING exploit?

The BASIC-MINING exploit utilized Rugpull. Understanding this attack vector is critical for smart contract auditors and developers building secure DeFi protocols.

How can developers prevent similar smart contract attacks?

Preventing smart contract hacks requires a combination of secure coding practices, thorough security audits, and understanding common attack vectors like reentrancy, oracle manipulation, and access control flaws. Smart Contract Hacking (SCH) provides hands-on training to help developers and auditors identify and prevent vulnerabilities before deployment.

BASIC-MINING Hack

TOTAL LOST $277K

Low Oct 01, 2013 Rugpull

Affected Chain 2013 Incident surface

Recovered - No recovery reported

All-Time Rank #1175 By amount stolen

Protocol Type Exit Scam/Rugpull Target category

Incident Overview

Mining company BASIC-MINING took advantage of the ASIC boom to become a leading publically-traded mining company by early 2013. After the collapse of BTC-TC, the exchange on which it was traded, the founder disappeared with substantial assets.

Incident Report

Protocol / Project BASIC-MINING

Date of Incident October 01, 2013

Attack Technique Rugpull

Classification Token

Primary Source View Post-Mortem

Protocol Information

Protocol Type Exit Scam/Rugpull

Team Anonymous

Source Code Unverified

Market Context at Time of Hack

What the Attacker Needed to Succeed

Understanding the prerequisites for this type of attack helps auditors identify protocols that are most at risk and helps developers build better defenses.

Technical Knowledge Deep understanding of rugpull and Solidity and EVM internals

Capital Required Seed capital to cover gas and initial position setup

On-Chain Access Ability to interact with smart contracts and deploy a custom exploit contract

Protocol Analysis Identification of the exploitable vulnerability in BASIC-MINING's contract logic - root cause: token

Execution Speed Precise transaction ordering and timing to exploit the vulnerability within a single atomic block

Obfuscation Plan A strategy to launder and move stolen funds - typically through mixers, cross-chain bridges, or decentralized DEX swaps to resist tracing

What Auditors Should Check

Could this have been caught in audit? Hard to catch — private key / OpSec failures are outside smart contract audit scope

If you're auditing a protocol with similar architecture to BASIC-MINING, these are the critical security checks that could have prevented this incident (October 2013).

Verify all logic paths related to Rugpull are guarded by proper access controls and input validation
Review privileged functions (owner, admin, governance) for potential abuse vectors - centralization risks should be documented and bounded with timelocks or multi-sigs

Master these auditing techniques with hands-on labs and real exploit scenarios in the Smart Contract Hacking course.

Free Trial

Sources & References

01
Source 1 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576337#post_toc_55

Threat Assessment

Severity Level

LOW

Attack Vector Rugpull
Root Cause Token
Year 2013

Learn to Prevent the Next BASIC-MINING

The BASIC-MINING hack is one of many attacks that skilled auditors are trained to detect before deployment. Master real exploit patterns and defense techniques with hands-on Web3 security training.

Start Free Trial Browse Attack Library