CustodyStress
Archive › Owner death
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01384

Owner death — hardware wallet (2025)

Blocked
Case description
A 2025 German estate case involved a holder who had stored their Bitcoin seed phrase using a proprietary splitting scheme that divided the 24 words into three groups of 8, stored in separate locations. Two groups were recovered from documented locations. The third group had been stored with a trusted friend who had predeceased the Bitcoin holder in 2024. The friend's estate had been settled and the friend's belongings distributed before anyone was aware of the Bitcoin custody significance of the documents. The third group of words could not be located. A recovery specialist confirmed that with only 16 of 24 words known, brute-force recovery was computationally infeasible.
Custody context
Stress conditionOwner death
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeBlocked
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2025
CountryGermany
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
Privately 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