BREAKING: Revolut handed over passports and Bitcoin records after a fake government request Revolut has confirmed that customer files left the company after staff treated a fraudulent request for information as genuine. The message did not come from just a lookalike email address. It came from an unauthorised mailbox on a real government domain and passed the usual email checks. Because it looked official, Revolut sent the data. Only later, after contacting the agency itself, did the firm realise the request was bogus. The files listed in customer notices go well beyond a name and an email. They include full name, date of birth, occupation, home address, phone number, copies of passports or driving licences, the verification selfie taken at sign-up, IBANs, account statements, withdrawal records and full transaction histories, including Bitcoin. Revolut says biometric face templates, login details and customer funds were not involved. Its systems were not hacked. No money is reported to have moved. A spokesperson told @BeInCrypto the company had identified “a sophisticated external impersonation attack where an unauthorised third party utilised a legitimate government agency domain email to submit fraudulent requests for information.” The same statement said Revolut’s systems and customer funds were unaffected. The firm says it blocked the sender, alerted the agency, the police and regulators, and contacted what it called a limited number of people. It has not named the agency or said how many customers were affected, citing a live police investigation. On-chain investigator @zachxbt , who first circulated the notices, said the incident looked small and aimed at higher-value users. A post circulating on X claimed a Revolut employee in charge of data security had just been sacked after asking whether the “.gov” address should be verified first. I understand that post is a parody. No evidence shows such a sacking took place. One person who contacted me knows someone who received the Revolut notice. At the time of writing, they could not provide details of how the company had communicated with that customer beyond the existence of the email. I understand this was human error in a process that assumes an authenticated government domain is enough. That assumption failed. It is an uncomfortable reminder that the most sensitive files a firm holds — identity documents, a face photo, a home address and a complete payment history — can leave the building without anyone breaking in. Any company that stores that pile and answers official-looking demands can make the same mistake. The test is whether Revolut, and everyone else sitting on the same kind of records, starts checking the person behind the mailbox, not just the domain on the envelope.

These views do not reflect the views of @ocean_mining and are mine exclusively: Saturday 8/8 saw the rejection of BIP110 by the Bitcoin industry despite broad support among the community. This shattered a long-standing belief that Bitcoin's anti-fragility and hard-monetary properties would continue thanks to its decentralized network of nodes who were run by people who understood Bitcoin and would fight to preserve it. I have been confident in Bitcoin's future and championed it as a tool for freedom. My reasons for doing so both required that it maintain and treat as a mission-critical priority the decentralization and ultimate authority of the network of nodes determining and enforcing its rules. They are no longer relevant. The degree to which this undermines Bitcoin's future cannot be overstated. Proof of Work is completely pointless if the criteria for what constitutes validity is decided by the ones doing the work. Pools have said "Our blocks are still valid, even if they violate rules we were told to respect." They did so within a small cartel of centralized pool operators clearly acting on behalf of industry players who operated behind closed doors ensuring that their public, breathtakingly arrogant, and nonsensically premature dismissal of BIP110 as a failure would not ultimately turn out any other way. They were not bluffing, they knew. By contrast, BIP110 supporters operated in public. We used neutral metrics that everyone had access to, and made the basis of our confidence publicly known. Sincere attempts were made to gauge community sentiment and engagement was public on all venues where discussion was permitted. Public engagement with influential Bitcoiners who opposed BIP110 demonstrated clearly that their opposition was not in good faith. This led to questions about their characters and intentions which were promptly corroborated by timely Epstein leaks. This meant that it was no longer frivolous dismissal of "the other side" out of pure tribal instinct as is standard within any conflict, and instead it would become laughably naive to continue assuming good faith on their part. Regardless, the spectacular, resolute dismissal of BIP110 necessarily reveals an equivalent stark and chilling reality with regard to decision-making about Bitcoin's consensus rules. No one, not even BIP110's most staunch critics can dismiss the implications of this. When Bitcoin is under attack, spontaneous defense that can withstand whatever onslaught it faces will simply be dismissed as "not economic", "a Sybil attack", "non technical", "censorship" or some other attempt to discredit and undermine it by the attackers. My expectation for the future is that for Bitcoin, reverse-Trojan horse theory continues to play out: The dollarization of the ecosystem will continue, and Bitcoin's ultimate goal - the separation of money and state, will be forgotten, while its captured players work towards the exact opposite end - its unification. Bitcoin is not the first protocol to become captured. It needed to become the exception, not the rule. The mechanism by which it did that is decentralization. Work is being done to hard fork Bitcoin with a new Proof-of-Work algorithm. I have said repeatedly in the past that in certain scenarios, should mining become captured and centralized to too great of a degree then the only defense the network would have would be to hard-fork to a new Proof-of-Work algorithm. I stand by this perspective as a truth fundamental to Bitcoin and everyone must agree with this stance if they are to believe Bitcoin is not whatever a necessarily few mining pools say it is. If you believe the miners acted on behalf of a silent community who secretly opposed BIP110 then I will respectfully disagree but agree that your conclusion about a PoW change being unwarranted must follow. You have misjudged the BIP itself and are simultaneously oblivious to the mechanisms that were abused to deny it, along with the intentions of the people working them. You also did not indicate your dislike of the BIP via discernable metrics (i.e not running a URSF and committing to its rejection) - instead you relied on a few pools to decide on your behalf. So what am I going to do? Wait with a stalled out Knots node. Another block will be along later rather than sooner, but I'll take it. That is what my entire Bitcoin stack sees as the state of the network. If a PoW change HF comes along with the next update to @BitcoinKnots that makes blocks start showing up faster I will upgrade to it and enjoy the benefit. I have no desire to attempt to call this new chain "Bitcoin" - Bitcoin is a case study in protocol capture and instead of dying, becomes a tool for the sickest of purposes. I can think of nothing more evil than centralized Bitcoin. It is whatever tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist told you Bitcoin was. But for all my day-to-day activities, all the software I use, Bitcoin is simply stuck at block 931,633. At current hashrate the next block will take ~32 hours. I sincerely doubt that anyone wants to find another 2000 blocks at this pace so HF is the only practical option.