CustodyStress
Archive › Multisig quorum failure
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01379

The third device had been destroyed in a vehicle fire months before the holder's death.

Constrained
Case description
A 2025 estate case involved a 2-of-3 multisig where the deceased had held all three keys personally—a configuration that negated the quorum safety benefits because death eliminated access to all keys simultaneously. The estate had letters testamentary and legal authority, but faced the technical problem that no individual key could be located. A forensic specialist identified that the three hardware devices had been stored in different locations across two states, all documented in a letter left with the deceased's attorney. Two devices were recovered and their PINs were documented. The third device had been destroyed in a vehicle fire months before the holder's death. Two keys were sufficient to meet quorum.
Custody context
Stress conditionMultisig quorum failure
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2025
CountryUnited States
What this illustrates
The setup required multiple people to sign off. Not enough of them were available. 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 multisig quorum failure
77 cases involve multisig quorum failure 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.