The holder reported that his PGP key was compromised and that bitcoin was taken from systems under his control.
Self-reported by the holder, a long-standing Bitcoin Core contributor. The precise compromise vector remains disputed publicly.
Deep technical expertise is not a custody architecture. If one machine's compromise can reach the keys, the setup has one failure domain regardless of who is operating it.
These are the custody configurations structurally exposed to this kind of event. It describes the failure class, not any individual holder.
Whether your own arrangement sits in one of those groups is the question our Custody Independence Standard is designed to answer, and the four questions in Is your custody setup actually safe? walk through it.
Holder's public statements
Figures are as reported by the named sources. Proof of Custody has not independently reproduced the underlying analysis.
Proof of Custody, "Luke Dashjr" incident record, proofofcustody.io/incidents/luke-dashjr-2023The holder reported that his PGP key was compromised and that bitcoin was taken from systems under his control. Reported loss: ~200 BTC reported.
Deep technical expertise is not a custody architecture. If one machine's compromise can reach the keys, the setup has one failure domain regardless of who is operating it.
This class of failure could reach: self-custody, single signature. It describes the failure class rather than any individual holder.