CustodyStress
Archive › Owner death
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01105

Owner death — hardware wallet (2023)

Blocked
Case description
A 2023 survey of estate planning attorneys specialising in digital assets found that cases of Bitcoin lost at death continued to accumulate. A common pattern involved holders who had set up self-custody between 2017 and 2021 during bull markets, never documented their setup, and died during the subsequent bear market period. Their families discovered holdings—often visible on blockchain explorers through old emails or exchange history—but had no access credentials. In many of these cases, recovery services confirmed the assets were on-chain but permanently inaccessible.
Custody context
Stress conditionOwner death
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeBlocked
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2023
CountryInternational
Structural dependencies observed
Single point of failure
What this illustrates
There was only one way in. When that path was gone, so was access. Access was not recoverable.
Outcome interpretation
Access was not possible under the reported conditions.
Source
Publicly Reported
Evidence type
News article
Related cases involving owner death
119 cases involve owner death 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