It depends on his cold wallet setup/usage. For example, using USB storage to transfer unsigned and signed transaction could  be exploited by specifically designed malware.


1. It won't be end of Bitcoin if Bitcoin switch to quantum-resistant cryptography.
2. Bitcoin don't use encryption protocol, but digital signature and hash cryptography.

Well, that's just great, new year starting with this story for bitcoin, mixers are always involved in theft related to btc, they are going to mix and get away with it. Feeling sad for the guy.

Get a hardware wallet. Or a SeedSigner device.
...Or set up both your cold storage and companion watch only hot wallet with Electrum on laptops with cameras, hence allowing you transfer those transactions (unsigned and signed) as QR code images.

If you're adding a secondary cold storage:
* you're doing it wrong
* you've misunderstood something and need to read more

However, this is off topic, if you have more questions please make a new topic with them.

You should be just fine if you keep Bitcoin in hardware wallet (Trezor, Passport, Bitbox, Keystone...) and keep seed phrase in secure way offline, but best protection is certainly using multisig setup.
I am surprised that Luke didn't use Multisig, that is must have for anyone that is dealing with larger amount of Bitcoin, like in his case with over 200.
Using dedicated computer for anything related with Bitcoin is also good, but I think Luke was targeted for some time and they just waited for the right moment to attack.

This is not good at all.
We don't want Binance freezing coins all the time, and we already know that CZ would love to control Bitcoin blockchain and reverse transactions whenever he wants.

Speaking of CZ now this incident support his claim about self-custody being more risky.  The follow up article after the initial report on the hack talks about the reaction of the community with regards to the incident of hacking.  And now the reaction is negative because the issue of self-custody is being highlighted and many worry that even the core developer who should be knowledgeable on security has been hacked, what more their grandma's wallet.


Other assumption thinks that the incident of is just a boating incident to avoid paying taxes[1].

---

[1] https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-core-developer-claims-to-have-lost-200-btc-in-hack

Considering this is a Bitcoin developer we are dealing with, they are going to take this matter very seriously. It's not like he's going to get stonewalled by endless layers of customer support bots & human reps like us ordinary plebs do...

---

I admit that I haven't fully grokked all the details about this so I'll be investigating more about this event.

Well this is a bad story.

200 BTC are huge money for most of us, but Luke Himself said it' a "large" part, not "all" of his Bitcoins.

Two consequences:
1.A  lot of bad FUD will come out of this story. "if even an OG bitcoin- core developer" cannot take his Bitcoin safe, who on Earth will be able to do so?"
2.Many of us will review practices to become more responsible managing satoshi. A long overdue review of all the processes involving UTXO manipulation will be carried out by most of us, following this new. And this is a good thing.

like myself. i have hoards from earlier years. that have not been moved. so due to lack of multisig in early years it wouldnt have been put on multisig when first received. and (even i havnt) bothered to move coins from old stash

if using multisig when its just you using all the keys. multisig ais a little pointles because you have to bring the keys together into one computer to compute address and also to make spends. thus pointless using becasue the keys would be just as compromised

multisog is only useful for multiple parties to sign separately in separate locations and then only need to append signature to a raw tx
...

coins were not on a hardware wallet. as that also requires moving coins from old addresses

he said he had alot of old legacy keypairs, some on a hot wallet and some backed up in physical form(paper wallet, usb stick) stored in a physical house-safe

he said he doesnt have a hardware wallet or airgapped pc.

I don't understand why anyone would panic and feel insecure at this moment, because no one hacked Bitcoin, but one man obviously made a wrong step somewhere and now he paid the price for it. The fact is that such a thing shouldn't have happened to a person like him, but it shouldn't have happened to the computer scientist whose HDD ended up in the trash, or to the engineer who forgot the device password and now only has a few attempts before the device resets.

People have always been and will remain the weakest link in any setup, no matter how secure it may seem at some point.