CustodyStress
Archive › Device loss
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01267

Device lost — Ledger Nano X (2024)

Constrained
Case description
A 2024 case involved a Ledger Nano X that had been sent for electronics recycling by a family member who didn't recognise it as a Bitcoin wallet. The holder's seed phrase was documented and they were able to restore access on a replacement device within 24 hours. However, the holder's concern was whether the recycling facility had any ability to extract keys from a device that had not been deliberately wiped. A security researcher confirmed that an intact, PIN-locked Ledger device with unknown PIN in a professional recycling environment would not be at risk—PIN protection and hardware security would prevent key extraction without the correct PIN.
Custody context
Stress conditionDevice loss
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2024
CountryUnited States
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