Bitcoin Setup Minimum Requirements as Context-Dependent Thresholds

Minimum Custody Setup Requirements by Context

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

Minimums Assume Shared Context

Someone setting up bitcoin custody wants to know the minimum they need to do. They search for bitcoin setup minimum requirements because they want a floor. They hope to find a list of basics that, once complete, puts their setup in acceptable territory. The search occurs when someone finishes initial setup or plans to start and wants to know the essential elements.

This memo examines why minimum requirements lack a fixed definition. What counts as minimum depends on the holder's context: their threat environment, their technical ability, their inheritance needs, and other factors specific to their situation. A minimum for one person falls short for another. A setup exceeding minimums in one area may miss them in another.

---

Minimums Assume Shared Context

Requirements work when everyone shares the same context. Building codes set minimums because every building faces gravity and weather. Fire codes set minimums because fire behaves the same way everywhere. These shared conditions allow fixed minimums.

Bitcoin custody contexts vary widely. One holder faces primarily digital threats. Another faces physical threats. One needs custody to last decades. Another needs it only for months. One has heirs with technical skills. Another has heirs who struggle with computers. These different contexts make the same setup differently adequate or inadequate.

A fixed minimum assumes that all contexts are similar enough for one threshold to apply. When contexts differ substantially, a single minimum either fits some situations and misses others, or becomes so general it provides little guidance. Bitcoin custody contexts differ enough that neither approach works well.

---

The Tradeoff Problem

Custody involves tradeoffs. More protection against one threat sometimes means less protection against another. Easier access means easier theft. Harder theft means harder access. Redundant backups mean more exposure points. Fewer backups mean more single points of failure.

These tradeoffs affect where minimums fall. A holder prioritizing protection against theft needs different minimums than one prioritizing easy inheritance. A holder who expects to access bitcoin frequently needs different minimums than one who will leave it untouched for years. The tradeoffs a holder chooses to make shape what minimum means for them.

Any list of minimum requirements embeds particular tradeoff choices. Those choices may not match a given holder's situation. A minimum designed for one set of tradeoffs misleads holders who face different tradeoff landscapes. The tradeoff problem prevents minimums from being universal.

Security and convenience pull in opposite directions. Adding more security measures increases friction for the holder's own access. Removing friction for the holder also removes obstacles for attackers. A minimum that demands high security may create unusable friction for some holders. A minimum that prioritizes convenience may leave others exposed to threats they actually face.

---

Amount as a Variable

How much bitcoin a holder has affects what counts as minimum custody. A small amount justifies less elaborate protection. A large amount justifies more. The same setup might exceed minimums for a small amount while falling below minimums for a large amount.

This amount variable complicates any fixed minimum list. If minimums adjust based on amount, they are not fixed. If they do not adjust, they apply poorly to amounts different from whatever amount the minimum assumed. A holder with different amounts over time faces shifting minimum requirements even without any change in their custody approach.

Amount also interacts with other factors. A large amount with simple inheritance needs faces different minimum requirements than a large amount with complex inheritance needs. The same amount in different contexts generates different minimum thresholds. Amount does not determine minimums alone but combines with other factors in complex ways.

---

Technical Ability Varies

What a technically skilled holder can maintain differs from what a non-technical holder can maintain. A complex setup that a skilled holder manages easily may overwhelm someone less technical. The complexity that provides strength for one becomes weakness for another.

This means minimums depend on who is doing the holding. A minimum for a software developer differs from a minimum for someone unfamiliar with computers. The holder's own capabilities shape what they can reliably maintain over time. A setup that exceeds their ability to maintain properly may fail despite having all the technical elements in place.

Minimums based on technical criteria ignore this human element. They describe what a setup contains without considering whether the holder can use it properly. A setup meeting technical minimums may still fail if the holder cannot operate it correctly. The holder's ability belongs in any meaningful assessment of minimums.

---

Inheritance Needs Change the Calculation

A holder with no inheritance concerns faces different requirements than one who needs bitcoin to transfer after death. Inheritance adds layers: documentation, communication to heirs, arrangements for access transfer. These layers change what counts as a complete setup.

Minimums that ignore inheritance apply only to holders without inheritance needs. Minimums that include inheritance assume all holders have such needs. Neither approach fits all situations. The presence or absence of inheritance requirements significantly shifts where the minimum threshold falls.

Inheritance needs themselves vary. A holder with one trusted heir faces different requirements than one with multiple heirs in conflict. Simple family structures need different arrangements than complex ones. The specific inheritance context shapes what minimum inheritance provisions look like—and for holders without inheritance concerns, those provisions may be irrelevant entirely.

---

Time Horizon Effects

How long a setup needs to last affects minimum requirements. A setup intended for short-term holding faces fewer durability demands than one intended to persist for decades. Hardware ages, paper degrades, and services change. Longer time horizons increase what the setup must survive.

Minimums that assume a long time horizon impose requirements unnecessary for short-term holding. Minimums that assume short time horizons leave long-term holders exposed. The intended duration of custody shifts the threshold for what counts as meeting minimum requirements.

Time horizons also interact with uncertainty. A holder may not know how long they will hold. They may intend short-term holding that extends unexpectedly. A setup that met minimums for the intended duration may fall short when duration extends. Time horizon is not always knowable, yet it affects what minimums mean.

---

The False Comfort of Meeting Minimums

Holders sometimes seek minimums because they want to know they have done enough. Meeting minimums provides a sense of completion. This sense of completion may or may not correspond to actual readiness.

A setup meeting some published minimum list may still contain specific weaknesses that matter for that holder. The minimum list addressed general concerns but not particular ones. The holder's context included factors the minimum did not contemplate. Meeting the minimum created confidence without addressing the actual vulnerability.

This gap between meeting minimums and being prepared creates risk. Holders who believe they have met minimums may stop examining their setup for weaknesses. They treat minimum as equivalent to adequate when these are different concepts. Minimums describe a floor; they do not describe fitness for a specific purpose.

---

What Minimums Cannot Capture

Some crucial elements resist reduction to minimum requirements. How clear is the documentation? The answer involves judgment, not a threshold. How well do the inheritors understand their role? The answer varies by person and changes over time. How tested is the backup recovery process? Testing once may not predict future success.

These judgment-dependent elements affect whether a setup works. Yet they do not reduce to checklists of minimum requirements. A holder can meet every minimum on a list while having unclear documentation, unprepared inheritors, and untested recovery. The list does not capture these factors.

Minimums work well for things that can be counted or verified: presence of a backup, use of certain hardware, existence of documentation. They work poorly for things requiring ongoing judgment: quality of that backup, proper use of that hardware, clarity of that documentation. Much of what determines custody success falls into the second category.

---

Summary

Bitcoin setup minimum requirements cannot be fixed because what counts as minimum depends on context. Threat environment, technical ability, inheritance needs, amount held, and time horizon all affect where the minimum threshold falls. A minimum for one context may be inadequate for another or excessive for a third.

Published minimum lists embed assumptions about context, tradeoffs, and priorities that may not match a given holder's situation. Meeting such lists creates a sense of completion that may not correspond to actual readiness for that holder's specific circumstances.

Minimums work for aspects of custody that can be counted or verified but struggle with judgment-dependent elements like documentation clarity or inheritor readiness. Much of what determines whether a setup works falls outside what minimum checklists can capture.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Bitcoin Custody Maturity Level as an Imported Framework

Bitcoin Custody Risk Assessment as Exposure Mapping

← Return to CustodyStress