Bitcoin Access Verification Test

Family Verification Testing for Recovery Steps

This memo is published by CustodyStress, an independent Bitcoin custody stress test that produces reference documents for individuals, families, and professionals.

What Access Verification Tests Check

A bitcoin access verification test aims to confirm that designated people can reach the bitcoin when needed. The test occurs without moving actual funds—perhaps verifying that a seed phrase restores to the expected addresses, or confirming that a hardware wallet displays the expected balance. This approach seems prudent: verify the path works without risking the assets. But access verification tests confirm technical capability under calm conditions. They cannot confirm operational success under the conditions where access actually matters.

This analysis covers the gap between what access verification tests measure and what successful inheritance access requires. Technical path confirmation differs from real-world access achievement. The test verifies one layer while leaving other layers unexamined.

---

What Access Verification Tests Check

Access verification tests check whether technical access paths function. A seed phrase can be entered into wallet software and produces the expected addresses. A hardware wallet powers on, accepts its PIN, and displays the expected balance. A multi-signature configuration shows the expected keys and threshold. Each test confirms a technical fact.

These tests can reveal technical failures. A seed phrase that was written down incorrectly will not restore to the expected addresses. A hardware wallet with a dead battery will not power on. A multi-signature configuration with a missing key will not meet its threshold. Technical verification catches technical problems.

The tests can be conducted periodically. Annual verification confirms that materials have not degraded, that backups remain accurate, and that the technical path still functions. Regular testing provides ongoing confirmation rather than a single point-in-time check.

Results are clear. Either the access path works technically or it does not. The seed phrase either restores correctly or it does not. The hardware wallet either displays the balance or it does not. Technical verification produces unambiguous outcomes for the specific things it tests.

---

What Access Verification Tests Miss

Technical path verification confirms the tools work. It does not confirm the people work. The seed phrase restores correctly when entered by someone who knows how to use wallet software. Whether the designated heir knows how to use wallet software is a different question. Technical verification assumes human capability that may not exist.

Access tests occur under calm conditions. No one is grieving. No one is rushed. No one is confused or stressed. The tester can focus entirely on the technical task. Real access happens under crisis conditions where human performance degrades. Technical success under calm conditions does not predict operational success under stress.

The tests verify current state. They confirm the path works today. They do not confirm the path will work in five or ten or twenty years when it is actually needed. Technology changes. Software becomes obsolete. Hardware fails. Conditions that pass verification today may fail when actual access is required.

Access tests verify isolated paths. They confirm one technical path functions. They do not confirm that the person who needs access can find the path, identify its components, and assemble them correctly. The path may work perfectly when handed to someone. Whether anyone can find it without help is unverified.

---

The Person Problem

Access verification often focuses on whether the holder can access their own bitcoin. The holder enters their seed phrase. They verify their hardware wallet works. They confirm their multi-signature setup functions. These tests verify holder access. Inheritance requires heir access.

Heirs bring different capabilities to access attempts. They may lack technical familiarity the holder has. They may not recognize wallet software or understand what a seed phrase does. They may be unfamiliar with the specific devices and procedures involved. Access that is trivial for the holder may be impossible for the heir.

Even when heirs attempt verification under guidance, the verification environment differs from the inheritance environment. The heir verifies with the holder available to answer questions. They work on familiar devices in familiar surroundings. Real inheritance happens without the holder, possibly on unfamiliar devices, certainly under unfamiliar circumstances.

The gap between holder capability and heir capability may be invisible to the holder. The holder sees the access path as simple because they understand it deeply. What seems obvious to them—which software to use, what buttons to click, what screens to expect—may not be obvious at all to someone approaching the system for the first time.

---

Condition Dependency

Access verification tests assume certain conditions. The tester has the materials. They have a device capable of running the necessary software. They have internet connectivity if needed. They have time and attention to focus on the task. These conditions are met during testing. They may not be met during actual access.

Material availability is condition-dependent. The heir must find the materials before they can use them. Verification tests typically start with materials in hand. Real access starts with searching for materials that may or may not be findable. The test skips the search phase that actual access requires.

Device availability varies. The heir may not have a device that runs the needed software. They may not know they need such a device. They may not know how to install software. Access verification that assumes an appropriate device exists may not apply when no such device is available.

Time and attention vary dramatically. A test allocates focused time. Real access competes with estate administration, grief processing, family obligations, and daily life demands. The attention available for access may be a fraction of what verification received. Procedures that worked with full attention may fail with fragmented attention.

---

The No-Funds-At-Risk Limitation

Testing without moving funds is prudent—it avoids risking assets during verification. But it also creates a limitation: the test never exercises the full access capability. Viewing a balance differs from moving funds. Signing a transaction in a test environment differs from executing a real transaction.

Psychological states differ when real funds are at stake. A tester who knows no money can be lost behaves differently than someone who knows a mistake could lose actual bitcoin. The caution, the double-checking, the anxiety—these affect performance in ways that low-stakes testing does not capture.

Some technical paths involve elements only activated during actual transactions. Network fees, transaction confirmation, broadcast mechanisms—these may function differently than the view-only access that verification tests exercise. A path that verifies successfully at the view level may encounter problems at the transaction level.

The final step of access—actually controlling the funds—remains untested when funds are not risked. This is the step that matters most, yet testing stops just short of it. The verification confirms everything except the thing that would prove complete access capability.

---

Temporal Gaps

Verification happens at one time. Access happens at a different, unknown future time. The gap between verification and access may be years or decades. Conditions that pass verification may fail at access time simply because too much has changed.

Technology ages faster than people. The wallet software that worked during verification may no longer be supported. The hardware wallet model may be discontinued. The file formats may have changed. Access paths depend on technology ecosystems that evolve independently of the holder's arrangements.

People age with different effects. The heir who successfully verified at age 35 may attempt access at age 65. Thirty years of aging affect capability. Vision, memory, technical comfort—all may have changed. The person who could perform the access then may struggle with it now.

The holder's arrangements may have changed without corresponding verification updates. A passphrase added. A new device obtained. A backup location changed. If verification was not repeated after changes, the last verification no longer reflects the current state. The test result is stale.

---

False Confidence From Passing Tests

Successful access verification tests create confidence. The path works. The technical components function. Everything checked out. This confidence may persist long after the verification occurred and long after conditions have changed.

Confidence from verification may reduce ongoing attention. The holder believes the access problem is solved because verification succeeded. They stop thinking about it. They do not update when circumstances change. They do not re-verify periodically. The confidence from past verification substitutes for ongoing vigilance.

The confidence may also transfer inappropriately. Verification confirmed technical path function. The holder may believe this means heirs can successfully access. The leap from "technical path works" to "inheritance will succeed" glosses over all the non-technical factors that affect actual access.

Heirs may inherit the confidence without inheriting the verification experience. The holder told them "everything is set up and verified." The heirs believe this. When actual access is needed, they discover that verification assumptions do not match their actual situation. The confidence they inherited was not theirs to have.

---

What Verification Provides

Despite limitations, access verification tests provide genuine value. They catch technical problems that would otherwise go unnoticed. A seed phrase transcription error found during verification can be corrected. A hardware wallet failure detected during testing can be addressed. Technical problems are real, and verification reveals them.

Verification also provides a forcing function for attention. The act of testing requires engaging with the custody arrangement. This engagement may surface issues beyond the technical path being tested. The holder notices that documentation is unclear, or that a backup location is no longer accessible, or that their heir does not understand the system. Verification prompts broader examination.

The process of verification transfers some knowledge. An heir who participates in verification learns something about the custody arrangement. They see where materials are. They watch the process work. This knowledge, while incomplete and subject to decay, is more than they would have without verification participation.

---

Assessment

A bitcoin access verification test confirms that technical access paths function under test conditions. It checks that seed phrases restore, hardware wallets work, and configurations match expectations. These are useful confirmations that catch technical problems.

But access verification tests confirm technical capability under calm conditions with available materials and focused attention. They do not confirm operational success under crisis conditions with missing materials and fragmented attention. The person problem—whether heirs can actually navigate the technical path—remains unverified when tests focus on technical function rather than human capability.

Temporal gaps between verification and actual access mean test results may not apply when access is needed. Technology evolves, people age, and arrangements change. Confidence from passing tests may persist inappropriately, substituting for the ongoing attention that changing circumstances require. Verification provides value but does not provide the assurance its results seem to offer.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Testing a Bitcoin Custody Setup

Auditing My Bitcoin Wallet

← Return to CustodyStress