Documentation absent — software wallet (2017)

Constrained

Case description

The Bitcoin Cash hard fork on 1 August 2017 created a situation where holders of BTC in wallets that had not been updated were uncertain whether they could safely claim BCH without risking their BTC. Multiple wallet providers published conflicting guidance. Users who followed incorrect advice from third-party guides sent transactions that unintentionally replayed across both chains, moving coins they had not intended to move.

Custody context

Stress condition	Documentation absent
Custody system	Mobile or software wallet
Outcome	Constrained
Documentation	Unknown
Year observed	2017
Country	Global

Structural dependencies observed

Undocumented procedureThird-party platform dependency

What this illustrates

Nobody had written down how to get back in. That knowledge existed only in the owner's head. 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

Publicly Reported

Evidence type

News article

Evidence link

https://dataprot.net/blog/bitcoin-hacks/

Related cases involving documentation absent

193 cases involve documentation absent 572 cases involve mobile or software wallet 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

Where Bitcoin Custody Intersects Legal and Fiduciary Authority

Where custody creates gaps in estate planning, fiduciary duty, and professional responsibility.

Professional Scope Boundary Matrix

What each professional or product covers, what they do not, and where gaps form between them.

The Independent Assessment Layer in Bitcoin Custody

How independent diagnostic layers emerge when multiple parties depend on shared infrastructure.