CustodyStress
Archive › Multisig quorum failure
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-00675

The attacker could not unilaterally spend but could block key rotation, leaving

Constrained
Case description
An October 2019 forum case describes a Bitcoin DAO whose treasury multisig used smart contract-based key recovery. A Solidity vulnerability in the recovery contract was exploited, allowing an attacker to gain control of one key position. The attacker could not unilaterally spend (quorum was 3-of-5) but could block key rotation, leaving the DAO's treasury in a permanently constrained state.
Custody context
Stress conditionMultisig quorum failure
Custody systemMobile or software wallet
OutcomeConstrained
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2019
CountryUnknown
Structural dependencies observed
Third-party platform dependencyInstitutional cooperation required
What this illustrates
Access ran through a third-party platform. When that platform became unavailable, so did the Bitcoin. 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
Forum post
Related cases involving multisig quorum failure
77 cases involve multisig quorum failure 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
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