Bitcoin Inheritance Simulation
Simulating Inheritance Without the Holder Present
This memo is published by CustodyStress, an independent Bitcoin custody stress test that produces reference documents for individuals, families, and professionals.
What Simulation Examines
An inheritance plan exists. The owner has thought about what happens to their Bitcoin after death. Documents name heirs. A will or trust exists. Backups are stored somewhere. The plan is in place—at least in concept.
The question is whether the plan works in practice. A bitcoin inheritance simulation models what happens when the owner becomes unavailable and heirs attempt to locate, interpret, and use custody artifacts. The simulation treats the handoff as if it were happening now, with current documents and current conditions.
The owner is absent from the simulation. No clarification is possible. No questions can be answered. The heirs, executors, and documents stand alone. The simulation observes whether coordination succeeds or collapses under these realistic constraints.
What Simulation Examines
Bitcoin inheritance scenario simulation examines the interaction between heirs, documents, authority, and custody artifacts during a modeled handoff window. It traces what happens when each party attempts to act using available information.
The simulation asks: Can heirs find the custody materials? Can they understand what the materials are? Can they use them to access the Bitcoin? Do they have the legal authority to act? Does their authority translate into actual access capability?
Each question can produce a different answer. Authority may exist without access capability. Access materials may exist without interpretation context. Everything may exist but fail to connect because the people involved cannot coordinate effectively.
Informal Context That Does Not Survive
Coordination often depends on informal context. The owner explained things to a spouse over dinner. The owner mentioned where backups are stored during a casual conversation. The owner assumed certain people knew certain things because the owner had told them once.
This informal context rarely survives into inheritance conditions. The spouse may not remember the dinner conversation. The casual mention may have been forgotten. The assumption that someone knows something may be wrong—they may have forgotten, misunderstood, or never fully registered what was said.
Simulate bitcoin inheritance conditions and this informal context disappears. The simulation operates with only what is documented, stored, and accessible—not what was said, implied, or assumed. The gap between informal understanding and formal documentation often explains why heirs cannot proceed.
Plausibility Versus Execution
Heir access often appears plausible in theory. The seed phrase is in the safe. The executor is named in the will. The instructions exist. Looking at the system from outside, access seems achievable.
Execution under real conditions is different. The heir opens the safe. They find papers but do not recognize which paper is the seed phrase. They find the seed phrase but do not know what to do with it. They know what to do but cannot find the passphrase. They find everything but enter it incorrectly. Each step that seemed simple becomes an opportunity for failure.
Bitcoin heir access simulation reveals the gap between plausibility and execution. The simulation forces heirs to actually work through the handoff using available materials. Gaps that were invisible in theory become visible in practice.
A Scenario Where Simulation Reveals Collapse
A man has a clear plan. His Bitcoin is backed up with a seed phrase stored in a safe deposit box. His wife is named as beneficiary. His brother is named as executor. Instructions are in a folder at home labeled "Important Documents."
The simulation begins. The man is treated as unavailable. His wife and brother attempt the handoff.
The wife knows about the safe deposit box but is not listed as an authorized accessor. She cannot open it without the brother's involvement as executor. The brother has authority but does not know a safe deposit box exists. He looks for Bitcoin materials at the home and finds the folder. The folder contains instructions that reference "the backup in the safe deposit box" but do not explain what a seed phrase is or how to use it.
The wife and brother eventually connect their knowledge. They access the box. They find the seed phrase. They do not find a passphrase because the man used one but did not document it. They restore a wallet. It shows zero balance. They do not know a passphrase was used. They conclude the Bitcoin is gone.
The simulation reveals multiple failures: access authorization gaps, distributed knowledge that did not combine, missing passphrase documentation, and inability to recognize an incomplete restoration. Each failure was invisible before the simulation made coordination explicit.
Authority Without Access
Legal authority and custody access are different things. A will names an executor. A trust names a successor trustee. A beneficiary designation names an heir. These are authority signals. They establish who has the legal right to act.
Authority does not produce keys. It does not produce credentials. It does not produce devices. It does not produce the knowledge needed to interpret custody materials. Authority signals that someone is legally permitted to access the Bitcoin. Authority does not provide the means to do so.
Inheritance handoff simulation bitcoin reveals authority-access divergence. The executor has legal authority over the estate. The executor does not have the seed phrase, the passphrase, the hardware wallet PIN, or the understanding of how the system works. Authority exists. Access does not.
Fragmented Artifacts
Custody artifacts—seed phrases, passphrases, devices, instructions—often exist in fragmented form. The seed phrase is in one location. The passphrase is in another. The device is somewhere else. The instructions that explain how everything connects are in a fourth place.
This fragmentation is often intentional. Separating artifacts improves security against theft. If an attacker finds one piece, they do not have everything needed for access. The fragmentation protects the Bitcoin.
The same fragmentation creates inheritance challenges. Heirs may find some artifacts but not others. They may not know other artifacts exist. They may not know how to connect the pieces they find. Security through fragmentation becomes inaccessibility through fragmentation when the person who knew how to reassemble everything is gone.
Simulation surfaces fragmentation by requiring heirs to locate and connect all necessary artifacts. It reveals which artifacts exist, where they are, and whether heirs can find and combine them without owner guidance.
Interpretation Bottlenecks
Documents often contain terms that require interpretation. "The wallet" could mean several things. "The backup" could refer to multiple items. "The passphrase" assumes the reader knows what a passphrase is and whether one exists.
The owner could resolve these ambiguities. The owner knows which wallet is meant. The owner knows which backup is referenced. The owner knows whether a passphrase exists and where it is stored. Without the owner, ambiguous terms become bottlenecks.
Heirs encounter these bottlenecks during simulation. The instructions say "use the backup to restore the wallet." The heir finds three items that might be backups. The heir does not know which one to use. The heir does not know what "restore" means in this context. The instruction that seemed clear to the owner becomes unclear to the heir.
A bitcoin inheritance simulation identifies interpretation bottlenecks by observing where heirs get stuck. The sticking points reveal where documentation assumes context that heirs do not have.
Timing and Coordination Collapse
Inheritance handoff does not happen instantly. Time passes between death and when heirs attempt access. This delay creates coordination challenges.
Grief affects capacity. The people who need to act are mourning. Their attention is divided. Their energy is limited. Tasks that would be manageable under normal conditions become difficult under grief.
Administrative sequencing creates delays. Probate takes time. Death certificates take time. Legal authority may not be established for weeks or months. During this delay, memory fades, urgency dissipates, and momentum is lost.
Coordination requires people to communicate and work together. Under stress, communication breaks down. People do not share information. People make assumptions about what others know. People wait for someone else to take the lead. The coordination that seemed straightforward becomes fragmented.
Simulation can model these timing pressures by introducing realistic constraints. It can observe what happens when heirs cannot act immediately, when grief reduces capacity, and when administrative delays extend the handoff window.
Third-Party Dependencies
Inheritance often involves third parties: banks that hold safe deposit boxes, services that hold keys, institutions that verify identity, professionals who provide guidance. These third parties may not cooperate in the way heirs expect.
A bank may require documentation the heir does not have. A custody service may have policies that delay or block heir access. An institution may not recognize the heir's authority without additional verification. A professional may be unavailable or unfamiliar with Bitcoin.
Simulation reveals third-party dependencies by tracing which parties are required to cooperate for the handoff to succeed. It identifies where third-party friction may delay or block access. It shows whether the inheritance path depends entirely on cooperative third parties or has alternatives when third parties do not cooperate.
False Positives in Wallet Recovery
Simulation frequently surfaces false positives—situations where a wallet appears valid but does not contain the intended holdings. The heir restores a wallet. A balance appears. The heir believes they have succeeded. But the balance is wrong, or the wallet is a decoy, or a passphrase-protected wallet remains hidden.
False positives are dangerous because they stop the search. The heir sees a wallet and concludes the task is complete. They do not look further. They do not question whether this is the right wallet. They accept the apparent success and miss the actual holdings.
Simulation can reveal false positives by establishing expected outcomes before the handoff is modeled. If heirs know what balance to expect, they can recognize when a restored wallet does not match. Without expected outcomes, false positives remain undetected.
Partial Knowledge That Does Not Combine
Multiple parties often hold partial knowledge. One person knows about the hardware wallet. Another knows the safe combination. A third knows the passphrase. Each person has a piece. No one has everything.
This distribution can work if the parties coordinate effectively. They share what they know. They combine their pieces. They assemble complete access capability from partial knowledge.
Under stress, coordination often fails. Parties do not communicate. Parties do not realize others have relevant knowledge. Parties may distrust each other or compete rather than cooperate. The partial knowledge exists. It does not combine.
Bitcoin inheritance simulation reveals whether distributed knowledge can be assembled. It models the coordination required to connect partial pieces. It shows whether the parties involved can and will work together effectively.
What Simulation Reveals
Simulation reveals how inheritance handoff actually behaves under modeled conditions. It shows where coordination succeeds and where it fails. It identifies specific gaps: missing artifacts, ambiguous documentation, authority without access, fragmented knowledge, third-party friction.
Simulation reveals dependencies that normal planning overlooks. The plan assumes heirs will find things. Simulation shows whether they actually can. The plan assumes coordination will happen. Simulation shows whether it actually does.
Simulation reveals the difference between intent and execution. The owner intended for heirs to access the Bitcoin. The simulation shows whether that intent translates into actual capability when the owner is not present to guide, explain, or intervene.
What Simulation Does Not Reveal
Simulation does not reveal future conditions. It models current state with current documents and current knowledge. Future changes—in people, relationships, documents, or systems—may alter outcomes.
Simulation does not reveal heir motivation. It models capability, not willingness. An heir who could access the Bitcoin may choose not to. An heir who cannot access it alone may find help the simulation did not anticipate.
Simulation does not guarantee outcomes. A handoff that succeeds in simulation may fail in reality due to unforeseen factors. A handoff that fails in simulation may succeed if circumstances differ. Simulation describes modeled behavior, not predictions.
The Boundary of the Simulation
A bitcoin inheritance simulation has boundaries. It models specific heirs with specific knowledge attempting handoff under specific conditions. Different heirs, different knowledge, or different conditions would produce different results.
The simulation assumes certain constraints: owner unavailability, document state as of the simulation date, heir capabilities as understood at that time. Relaxing or changing these constraints would change what the simulation reveals.
Within its boundaries, simulation provides useful information about handoff capability. Outside its boundaries, other factors dominate. Simulation is one lens for examining inheritance readiness, not a comprehensive assessment of all possible outcomes.
What the Result Represents
The result of a bitcoin inheritance simulation is a description of modeled inheritance handoff behavior under stated assumptions. It shows where coordination succeeds, where it fails, and what dependencies determine the outcome.
The result does not represent inheritance preparedness. A system may be well-prepared in ways the simulation did not test. A system may appear prepared while having gaps the simulation revealed.
The result does not represent outcome certainty. It describes how the system behaved when examined under specific conditions. Actual inheritance may encounter different conditions. The simulation reveals structure and behavior, not fate.
Assessment
A bitcoin inheritance simulation models inheritance handoff conditions before death to observe whether heir access and coordination succeed or collapse under realistic constraints. The simulation treats the owner as unavailable and traces what happens when heirs attempt to locate, interpret, and use custody artifacts.
Coordination often depends on informal context that does not survive into inheritance conditions. Heir access that appears plausible in theory often fails in execution. Authority signals do not produce access capability. Fragmented artifacts may not be found or combined. Interpretation bottlenecks block progress when documentation assumes context heirs lack.
Timing pressures, third-party dependencies, and distributed knowledge create additional failure modes. False positives can stop heirs from finding actual holdings. Multiple parties may hold partial knowledge that does not combine under stress.
Simulation reveals these dynamics by modeling the handoff explicitly. The result describes observed coordination behavior under stated assumptions, isolating gaps and dependencies without prescribing changes or guaranteeing outcomes.
System Context
Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress
Is My Bitcoin Lost If I Die: Modeled Custody Behavior at Death
For anyone who holds Bitcoin — on an exchange, in a wallet, through a service, or in self-custody — and wants to know what happens to it if something happens to them.
Start Bitcoin Custody Stress Test$179 · 12-month access · Unlimited assessments
A structured, scenario-based diagnostic that produces reference documents for your spouse, executor, or attorney — no accounts connected, no keys shared.
Sample what the assessment produces