Bitcoin Executor Access Test

Testing Whether an Executor Can Access Holdings

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

What Access Testing Examines

An executor has been named. The estate documents identify who will manage the Bitcoin when the owner dies. The legal question of authority appears settled. The executor has the legal right to act on behalf of the estate.

The operational question remains open. Can this executor actually access the Bitcoin? Having the legal authority to manage an asset is different from having the practical ability to reach it. A bitcoin executor access test examines this gap. It models whether the named executor can convert paper authority into real access.

The test assumes the executor is acting without the owner's help. The owner is gone. The executor has documents, perhaps some materials, and whatever instructions were left behind. The test asks: given these conditions, can the executor reach the Bitcoin?

---

What Access Testing Examines

Executor bitcoin access testing examines the path from legal authority to operational control. The executor has been granted authority by the estate. The test traces what happens when the executor attempts to exercise that authority.

The path includes multiple components. The executor needs to locate the Bitcoin—to know where it is held and in what form. The executor needs credentials—passwords, PINs, passphrases, and recovery codes. The executor needs devices—hardware wallets, phones, or computers that hold keys or provide access. The executor needs knowledge—understanding of how the components fit together and how to use them.

Each component can block the path. Missing any one of them may prevent access entirely. The test examines whether these components exist, whether the executor can find them, and whether the executor can use them.

---

Authority Without Access Artifacts

Executors are often named in legal documents that do not address access. The will names an executor. The trust names a successor trustee. The estate plan identifies who manages digital assets. These documents establish legal authority. They do not provide access artifacts.

Access artifacts are the physical and informational items that enable Bitcoin access: seed phrases, hardware wallets, account credentials, and documentation explaining how to use them. Legal documents rarely contain these things. They exist separately, if they exist at all.

A bitcoin executor access test reveals the gap between legal appointment and access capability. The executor may have a court order confirming their authority. The executor may not have the seed phrase. The authority exists on paper. The access artifacts exist elsewhere—or nowhere.

---

Documentation That Assumes Context

When documentation exists, it often assumes the reader has context the executor lacks. The owner wrote instructions assuming the reader understood basic Bitcoin concepts. The owner documented steps assuming the reader knew which software to use. The owner left notes assuming the reader could fill in the gaps.

Executors frequently encounter documentation written for someone else—someone who already understood the system, who had conversations with the owner, who watched the owner use the setup. The executor is not that person. The executor comes to the documentation cold, without background, without context, without the ability to ask clarifying questions.

Executor bitcoin access testing surfaces these context gaps. The documentation says "restore the wallet." The executor does not know what wallet software to use. The documentation says "use the backup." The executor does not know where the backup is stored. The instructions assume knowledge the executor does not have.

---

A Scenario Where Authority Exists but Access Does Not

A woman dies. Her brother is named as executor. The estate documents are clear. The brother has full authority over her digital assets, including Bitcoin. The probate court confirms his appointment.

The brother begins searching for the Bitcoin. He knows his sister owned some. She mentioned it occasionally. He finds a small device in her desk that he later learns is a hardware wallet. He does not know the PIN. He finds papers in her safe deposit box, including what appears to be a list of words. He does not know what they are for.

The brother contacts the hardware wallet manufacturer. They explain they cannot help—they do not hold keys or have access to user funds. He contacts a lawyer. The lawyer handles estates but does not understand Bitcoin custody. He searches online and finds conflicting information about how to proceed.

Months pass. The brother has complete legal authority. He has physical possession of relevant materials. He cannot convert these into access. The bitcoin executor access test, applied to this scenario, would have revealed that the path from authority to access was blocked by missing knowledge and context.

---

The Gap Between Legal Records and Custody Materials

Legal records and custody materials often exist in separate worlds. The legal records—wills, trusts, estate plans—live with lawyers, in safe deposit boxes, in filing cabinets. The custody materials—seed phrases, devices, credentials—live wherever the owner put them.

These worlds may not connect. The will names the executor but does not mention where custody materials are stored. The trust establishes authority over digital assets but does not describe what those assets are or how to reach them. The estate plan addresses Bitcoin in general terms without providing specific access information.

Executor access to bitcoin custody depends on connecting these worlds. The executor needs both legal authority and custody materials. Having one without the other produces a gap. The test examines whether these worlds have been connected—whether the executor can move from legal documents to custody artifacts without getting lost in between.

---

Keys, Devices, and Interpretive Knowledge

Access requires more than possession of artifacts. The executor may have the seed phrase but not know how to use it. The executor may have the hardware wallet but not know the PIN. The executor may have instructions but not understand the terminology.

Interpretive knowledge is the understanding needed to convert artifacts into action. It includes knowing which wallet software works with which seed phrase format. It includes understanding what a passphrase is and whether one was used. It includes recognizing which device matters and which is a decoy. It includes reading documentation and understanding what it means.

Bitcoin executor access modeling examines whether the executor has this interpretive knowledge or can acquire it. The test asks: given the artifacts available, can this executor figure out what to do with them? The answer depends on the executor's background, the quality of documentation, and the complexity of the custody setup.

---

Stress, Time Pressure, and Unfamiliarity

Executors do not operate under ideal conditions. They are managing an estate, which involves many tasks beyond Bitcoin. They may be grieving. They may be dealing with family dynamics. They may be working under legal deadlines.

These conditions affect executor capability. A task that would take an hour under calm conditions may take days under stress. A mistake that would be caught by a careful review may slip through when attention is divided. A question that would be asked in normal circumstances may go unasked when the executor is overwhelmed.

Executor bitcoin access testing accounts for these conditions. It models executor behavior not as it would occur in a laboratory but as it would occur in the real context of estate administration. The executor is stressed. The executor is busy. The executor may have never touched a hardware wallet before. These factors constrain what the executor can realistically accomplish.

---

Dependencies on Informal Explanation

Many custody systems depend on informal explanation that was never formalized. The owner planned to walk the executor through the process. The owner assumed they would be available to answer questions. The owner thought there would be time to explain.

Death removes the explainer. The informal explanation that was supposed to happen never happens. The executor faces the custody system alone, without the walkthrough, without the answers, without the guide who understood how everything worked.

Bitcoin executor access testing reveals these dependencies. It asks: can the executor proceed using only what is documented, without asking the owner anything? If the answer is no, the test has identified a dependency on explanation that death eliminates. The access path assumed the owner would be present. The owner is not present.

---

Dependencies on Third-Party Helpers

Some custody systems involve third parties who hold pieces of the puzzle. A technical friend who understands the setup. A family member who has a backup key. A professional who manages part of the custody arrangement.

Executor access testing examines whether these helpers are identified, available, and willing to assist. The executor may not know the technical friend exists. The family member may have moved away or become uncooperative. The professional may have policies that prevent disclosure to executors.

Dependencies on third parties create additional paths that can fail. The executor has authority over the Bitcoin, but the third party controls a piece needed for access. The third party may not recognize the executor's authority. The third party may not respond to requests. The third party may have their own concerns about liability or privacy.

The test surfaces these dependencies by tracing who else is involved in the access path and whether the executor can successfully engage them.

---

What Testing Reveals About the System

Bitcoin executor access testing reveals properties of the custody system, not properties of the executor. A capable executor may fail because the system has gaps. An inexperienced executor may succeed because the system is simple and well-documented.

The test shows where the system depends on the owner's presence, memory, or explanation. It shows where documentation is incomplete or assumes too much. It shows where coordination with third parties creates failure points. It shows where the path from authority to access is clear and where it is blocked.

These are system properties. They exist regardless of who the executor is. A different executor would encounter the same gaps, the same missing context, the same dependencies. The test models how the system behaves when operated by someone other than its creator.

---

Modeled Behavior Versus Actual Outcome

Access testing models what would happen, not what will happen. The model makes assumptions about executor behavior, available information, and system state. Actual outcomes may differ.

The executor in real life may be more persistent than the model assumes. The executor may find help the model did not anticipate. The executor may discover information that was thought to be lost. Conversely, the executor may give up sooner than expected. The executor may make errors the model did not predict. Circumstances may change in ways the model did not consider.

Bitcoin executor access modeling produces a description of modeled behavior under stated assumptions. It does not predict the future. It does not guarantee outcomes. It reveals how the system behaves when examined under specific conditions, recognizing that actual conditions may vary.

---

What Testing Does Not Measure

Access testing does not measure executor competence. An executor who fails the test may be highly competent in other domains. An executor who passes may succeed only because the system was simple. The test examines the interaction between executor and system, not the executor's abilities in isolation.

Testing does not measure preparedness. The custody system may fail access testing while the owner believes they are fully prepared. Preparation is a subjective assessment. Access testing is a structural examination. The two may not align.

Testing does not measure security. A system that passes access testing may have security vulnerabilities. A system that fails may be highly secure. Access and security are different properties. Making a system accessible to executors may reduce its security against attackers. The test does not evaluate this tradeoff.

---

The Boundary of the Test

Every test has boundaries. Bitcoin executor access testing examines whether an executor can reach the Bitcoin given certain assumptions. It does not examine what happens after access is achieved. It does not examine how the Bitcoin is distributed, taxed, or managed. It does not examine family disputes, legal challenges, or creditor claims.

The test assumes a specific executor with specific characteristics. A different executor would produce different results. The test assumes specific information is available or unavailable. Different information would change the outcome. The test assumes the custody system is in a specific state. Changes to the system would alter what the test reveals.

Within its boundaries, the test provides useful information about the access path. Outside its boundaries, other factors dominate. Access testing is one lens among many that can be applied to custody systems.

---

What the Result Represents

The result of a bitcoin executor access test is a description of modeled system behavior. It shows where the access path is clear and where it is blocked. It identifies dependencies on documentation, artifacts, knowledge, and third parties. It reveals assumptions embedded in the custody system about who can act and what they know.

The result does not represent executor quality. A failing result does not mean the executor is bad. A passing result does not mean the executor is good. The result reflects the interaction between executor and system under modeled conditions.

The result does not represent system quality either. A system that fails access testing is not necessarily poorly designed. It may be designed for security rather than accessibility. It may be designed for the owner's use rather than executor use. The test reveals behavior, not merit.

---

Summary

A bitcoin executor access test examines whether a named executor can convert legal authority into actual Bitcoin access. The test models the path from paper appointment to operational control, identifying where that path is clear and where it is blocked.

Executors often receive authority without access artifacts. Documentation frequently assumes context the executor lacks. Legal records and custody materials exist in separate worlds that may not connect. The executor faces keys, devices, and interpretive knowledge requirements while operating under stress, time pressure, and unfamiliarity.

Testing reveals dependencies on informal explanation and third-party helpers that death or circumstances may eliminate. It shows system properties—where gaps exist, where documentation fails, where coordination is required. The result is a description of modeled behavior, not a prediction of actual outcomes or a judgment of executor competence.

Executor bitcoin access testing provides one lens for examining custody systems. It asks whether authority can become access. The answer depends on the system, not just the executor. The test makes visible what normal operation conceals: the path an executor travels when the owner is no longer there to guide them.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Can Executor Access My Bitcoin: Modeled Authority Versus Access Constraints

Bitcoin Executor Legal Responsibilities and Access Constraints

← Return to CustodyStress