CustodyStress
Archive › Device loss
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01304

The PIN-protected device could not be used by the thief without the PIN.

Constrained
Case description
A Bitcoin holder reported in 2024 that their Ledger Nano S had been stolen in a burglary along with their laptop. The PIN-protected device could not be used by the thief without the PIN. However, the seed phrase backup had also been stored digitally as an encrypted file on the stolen laptop. The holder immediately transferred funds to a new wallet using a backup of the seed phrase they maintained separately, and the stolen device and file were never exploited. The case illustrated the importance of seed phrase separation from devices: holders who stored both device and seed phrase backup in the same physical or digital location faced a dual vulnerability.
Custody context
Stress conditionDevice loss
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2024
CountryInternational
What this illustrates
The wallet existed only on that device. When the device became inaccessible, there was no other way back in. Whether full access was ultimately possible is unclear, but significant delay or outside intervention was involved.
Outcome interpretation
Access remained possible, but only with delay, dependence, or significant difficulty.
Source
Privately Reported
Evidence type
News article
Related cases involving device loss
188 cases involve device loss 274 cases involve hardware wallet (single key) View archive statistics →
This archive documents observed custody survivability failures. It does not attempt to document all Bitcoin losses or security incidents. Submit a case
← All cases
Framework references
Terms guide
Survives
Access remained possible under the reported conditions.
Constrained
Access remained possible, but only with delay, dependence, or significant difficulty.
Blocked
Access was not possible under the reported conditions.
Indeterminate
There was not enough information to determine the outcome.
Single-person knowledge
Recovery depended on information or capability held by one individual who was unavailable.
Institutional dependence
Recovery depended on a third-party institution or service that was inaccessible or uncooperative.
Documentation gap
Recovery depended on instructions that were missing, incomplete, or unclear.
Authority mismatch
The person with legal authority to act did not have operational access, or vice versa.
Original text
Rate this translation
Your feedback will be used to help improve Google Translate