Apparently, Our Theory About The Fake Banksy NFT Was Incorrect. Here’s New Info

A couple of weeks ago, a hacker with a heart of gold sold a fake Banksy NFT for 100 ETH and then gave the money back. They advertised the auction through Banksy’s official site. If the NFT was fake, someone hacked that site. Which seemed unlikely. Also, there is the issue of the alias that the scammed NFT collector uses. Pranksy, a play on words referencing the elusive graffiti artist Banksy mixed with the word “prank.” Which is what this whole situation is. 

Too many coincidences. Suspicious, we posed our theory:

“Was Pranksy targeted by Banksy and his team? If Banksy wanted to create worldwide headlines and comment on the NFT boom at the same time, a notorious art collector was the missing ingredient. Pransky’s prominence in the NFT community mixed with his name makes him an ideal target.”

It seemed to fit, but the case of the fake Banksy NFT never ceases to amaze. 

5 BTC + 300 Free Spins for new players & 15 BTC + 35.000 Free Spins every month, only at mBitcasino. Play Now!

Security Experts Warned Banksy About His Website’s Vulnerability

Luckily for us, the BBC is on the case. They interviewed Sam Curry, “a professional ethical hacker from the US and founder of security consultancy Palisade.” There seem to be too many “ethical hackers” in this story, but ok… Curry told them:

“I was in a security forum and multiple people were posting links to the site. I’d clicked one and immediately saw it was vulnerable, so I reached out to Banksy’s team via email as I wasn’t sure if anyone else had.

“They didn’t respond over email, so I tried a few other ways to contact them including their Instagram, but never received a response.”

These things happen. How many emails does Banksy’s team get? Did it pass their spam folder? Can we be sure they read it on time? The suspicious thing, though, is Mr. Curry’s description of the site’s vulnerability. It:

 “allowed you to create arbitrary files on the website” and post your own pages and content.

So, the flaw permitted the hackers to do exactly what they needed to do to advertise the fake Banksy NFT auction and not much more, huh? Interesting.

Get 110 USDT Futures Bonus for FREE!

ETHUSD price chart - TradingView

ETHUSD price chart - TradingView

BTC price chart on Bitbay | Source: BTC/USD on

Banksy Isn’t Responsible For The Fake Banksy NFT, Experts Say

Neither the artist’s official website nor the Pest Control website, even acknowledge the fake Banksy NFT. Something doesn’t feel right, though. The BBC felt our uneasiness and tried to put our concerns to rest. They consulted two Banksy experts and they both thought that the shoe didn’t fit. According to them, the elusive graffiti artist is not the mastermind behind the whole event. This is not a “Banksy stunt.” Professor Paul Gough, “principal and vice-chancellor of Arts University Bournemouth,” goes first:

“I don’t see it as a Banksy prank. The timing for me doesn’t work right, the context doesn’t feel appropriate. He’s just done his ‘Spraycation’ stunt where he bombed 10 sites in East Anglia, and put out a video on social media about it.

“That is a pretty major stunt and takes a lot of organising by a very professional crew, so I just don’t think the timings right here so soon after that.”

Here’s the Spraycation video, dated August 13th, 2021:

[embedded content]

It does seem like a “major stunt.” Does that mean that the fake Banksy NFT operation is out of the question? Or did Banksy went to work immediately after finishing his spraycation? Did the elusive graffiti artist strike again in the digital realm?

Second at bat is John Brandler, a Banksy collector, who provides another reason:

 “Banksy’s stunts are not malicious and they don’t hurt people.”

Good point, but let’s be honest, the incident didn’t really hurt Pranksy. The NFT collector got his ETH back,  was the subject of worldwide headlines, and still got to keep the fake Banksy NFT. It may be worth something, someday. 

Is this the last we’re going to hear about the fake Banksy NFT?

Featured Image: Screenshot of the fake Banksy NFT | Charts by TradingView


Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Valid Points: Price Dips, 60K Validators and Eth 2.0’s ‘Graffiti’ Messages

It’s been a rough start to the week for crypto investors, although numbers are starting to point upwards once again.

Eyes were anxiously set on a new all-time high for ether that failed to materialize as Bitcoin miners largely pulled the price rug last weekend out from under the entire crypto market.

Let us not despair too much, however. There’s much to be discussed in the world of Ethereum 2.0. This week, we’ll look at some network stats that continue to show healthy growth among multiple key metrics such as active validators and slashing events. After that, we’ll look at the role of graffiti messages – the secret notes you can sign to on-chain messages.

Pulse check

Source:, Dune Analytics and Staking Rewards (Data as of 1/12/2021 @ 19:20 UTC)

Ethereum investors are still picking their teeth up from the floor after a 30% drop in the price of the cryptocurrency over the weekend from a high of $1,334 to $926, according to the CoinDesk 20.

And while red became the unofficial color of many decentralized finance (DeFi) users, Eth 2.0 stakers kept reeling in that sweet, sweet ether. Indeed, Eth 2.0 spits out steady rewards regardless of market conditions, and funds are locked for at least a year or more. So what’s there to worry about in the short run, right?

Looking at the network, the total amount of ether staked increased on the network roughly 5% since Jan. 5, although the total value locked on the contract dropped by about $2 million as the price of ether tumbled.

The Beacon Chain is also showing some 98% network participation, meaning the network is humming along just fine. There are almost 60,0000 active validators on Eth 2.0 as well, according to

Finally, Eth 2.0 almost went a full week without a slashing event. Unfortunately, validator 57976 failed to attest a vote correctly and was subsequently slashed and exited from the validator pool. That event joins 35 other slashing events to date, according to 

New frontiers

The launch of a new blockchain is a historic event. To mark the occasion, a little note is often included in the chain’s Genesis block; for example, Bitcoin’s first block included The Times headline below:

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for bank

A note also accompanied the launch of Ethereum 2.0 on Dec. 1. But it ended up being a smidge less dramatic than Satoshi Nakamoto’s call to arms against central banks: “Mr. F was here,” the block’s graffiti reads. 

As Trustnodes reported, Mr. F is a decentralized application (dapp) developer who happened to be at the right place at the right time. No, it doesn’t have any significance. Yet, it does fit Ethereum community’s quirky nature pretty well, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin pointed out.

You may be wondering what “graffiti” is in the first place – at least, what it is in the context of blockchains. The Eth 2.0 spec describes graffiti as essentially arbitrary data with “no protocol level significance.” Graffiti is signed on the block level versus other arbitrary data inclusion points on the transaction level.

To date, graffiti has mainly been used by staking firms to identify the blocks they’ve validated. A few corny jokes have also been inserted here or there such as “why hodl when you can stake -P.”

Arbitrary on-chain data

There are a few ways to include data such as signed messages into the Eth 1.x blockchain, Teku project owner at ConsenSys Ben Edgington told CoinDesk in a direct message. 

The extra data field is perhaps the best corollary to the graffiti field as both occur on the block level and allows for inputting a limited amount of arbitrary info, he said.

(You can also upload information in a separate function, Ethereum’s data field, similarly to Bitcoin’s op_return function. These functions operate on a transaction level rather than the  block level, Edgington said. Eth 2.0 can’t yet send transactions so this function does not exist).

Storing random arbitrary data is easier on Ethereum than on Bitcoin, Edgington said. 

Indeed, Buterin and most Ethereum developers have never been too concerned with so-called “bloating” the blockchain with data, compared to Bitcoin developers, as CoinDesk reported in 2014 during the thick of the op_return conflict. Data can be stored on-chain as long as it pays the necessary fee to do so. 

“The ability for the miner to put a small amount of arbitrary data into a block has always been a feature of Ethereum, and uncontroversial. It’s usually used for input data to smart contracts, but doesn’t have to be,” Edgington said.

Validated takes

  • Bitcoin Goes Institutional, Ethereum Spreads Its Wings: CoinDesk Q4 2020 Review (Research, CoinDesk)
  • Scaling Solution Hermez Network Adds Tether Token to Tackle High Ethereum Fees (Article, CoinDesk)
  • Ethereum at $1000, redux (Blog post, Evan van Ness)
  • DeFi Top 20 with Arthur0x, Su Zhu and Hasu – Part Two (Podcast, Uncommon Core)
  • Why we need wide adoption of social recovery wallets (Blog post, Vitalik Buterin)
  • An Incomplete Guide to Rollups (Blog post, Vitalik Buterin)

Factoid of the week

Sign up to receive Valid Points in your inbox, every Wednesday.

We’ll soon be incorporating data directly from CoinDesk’s own Eth 2.0 validator node in our weekly analysis. All profits made from this staking venture will be donated to a charity of our choosing once transfers are enabled on the network. For a full overview of the project, check out our announcement post.



Tagged : / / / / / /
Bitcoin (BTC) $ 27,035.24 2.96%
Ethereum (ETH) $ 1,864.74 2.25%
Litecoin (LTC) $ 89.51 3.03%
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) $ 112.57 1.79%