Executor Thinks Bitcoin Keys Exist but Don't

Executor Assumptions About Keys That Do Not Exist

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

Sources of the False Belief

An executor administers an estate that includes bitcoin. The executor believes that access keys exist somewhere—a seed phrase, a backup, documentation that will enable access. They proceed on this assumption, planning and acting as if finding the keys is a matter of effort. But the executor thinks bitcoin keys exist when they do not. The keys were never created, were destroyed, or were lost in ways that left no trace. The executor operates on a false premise.

This analysis covers the consequences of executor false belief about key existence. Actions taken based on this belief consume time and resources pursuing something that does not exist. The executor's planning, communication with heirs, and estate timeline all reflect an assumption that is fundamentally wrong.

---

Sources of the False Belief

The false belief that keys exist often comes from reasonable inference. The deceased owned bitcoin. Owning bitcoin requires keys at some point. Therefore, keys must exist. This logic is sound for the moment of acquisition but does not account for what may have happened since.

Family members may reinforce the false belief. They remember the deceased talking about bitcoin. They assume the deceased was careful about backups. They tell the executor that "the information must be somewhere." Their confidence becomes the executor's confidence, even though none of them knows whether keys actually exist.

Documentation can create false belief. The will mentions bitcoin. Estate planning documents reference cryptocurrency. The existence of documentation about bitcoin suggests documentation of access exists too. The executor assumes that someone careful enough to include bitcoin in estate planning would be careful enough to preserve access. The assumption may be wrong.

---

Why Keys Might Not Exist

Keys might never have been properly backed up. The deceased generated a wallet, used it, and never recorded the seed phrase. They relied on the device or software remaining accessible. They did not create the backup that the executor assumes exists.

Keys might have been destroyed. The backup existed but was lost in a fire, flood, or move. The hardware wallet was discarded by someone who did not understand what it was. The paper record deteriorated, was thrown away, or was deliberately destroyed for security reasons. Something that once existed no longer exists.

Keys might have been lost through digital failure. A hard drive crashed. An encrypted file's password was forgotten. A cloud storage account was closed. A device was stolen. The digital record that once held access information is no longer accessible.

Keys might exist only in memory that is now gone. The deceased memorized their passphrase and never wrote it down. They knew their PIN by heart. They remembered where things were stored. Their death took this information with them.

---

Actions Based on False Belief

The executor who believes keys exist searches for them. They examine documents, go through the deceased's belongings, check safe deposit boxes, and contact people who might know. Each action assumes there is something to find. When keys do not exist, these searches find nothing because there is nothing to find.

The executor may hire specialists based on the false belief. They engage bitcoin recovery services, forensic investigators, or technical consultants. They explain that keys exist somewhere and need to be located. The specialists may search diligently without finding anything because nothing exists to find. Fees are paid for searches with predetermined failure.

The executor communicates with heirs based on the false belief. They report that they are searching for the keys. They suggest that access is a matter of locating what exists. They maintain hope in the family that the bitcoin will eventually be accessible. This hope is built on a premise that is not true.

---

The Search for What Does Not Exist

Searching for keys that do not exist has no natural endpoint. When searching for something that exists, eventually you find it or exhaust places to look. When searching for something that does not exist, you can never confirm its absence—you can only fail to find it repeatedly.

The executor may expand the search based on continued failure. They looked in obvious places without success; perhaps the keys are in less obvious places. They contacted expected sources without result; perhaps unexpected sources know something. Each failure can prompt expanded searching rather than acceptance that nothing exists.

Time spent searching is time not spent on other estate matters. The bitcoin search competes with attention needed for other assets, tax filings, and distributions. The false belief that keys exist keeps resources flowing toward an impossible goal while other responsibilities wait.

---

When the False Belief Persists

The false belief may persist indefinitely because it cannot be disproven. The executor cannot prove keys do not exist—they can only fail to find them. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. Someone might still know something. Some storage location might remain unsearched. The search could continue forever.

Family pressure may sustain the false belief. Heirs who expect inheritance do not want to accept that the bitcoin is inaccessible. They encourage continued searching. They suggest new places to look. Their desire for a different outcome keeps the false belief alive in the executor's mind.

The executor's own hope may sustain the belief. Accepting that keys do not exist means accepting failure to recover a significant asset. The executor may prefer to keep searching—keeping hope alive—rather than accept that the search was always futile.

---

The Shift from Searching to Acceptance

Eventually, most executors shift from searching to acceptance. The shift may come gradually as repeated failures accumulate. It may come suddenly when a professional delivers an assessment. It may come through exhaustion when the effort becomes unsustainable. The timing varies but the pattern is consistent.

Acceptance is not proof. The executor accepts that keys probably do not exist, but they cannot know with certainty. The acceptance is practical rather than factual—a decision to stop searching rather than a confirmation that nothing exists. This uncertainty may linger even after acceptance.

Acceptance must be communicated to heirs. The executor who shifts from searching to acceptance must explain this shift. Heirs who expected inheritance must be told the bitcoin is inaccessible. This communication is difficult because it delivers bad news based on uncertainty—the executor is not certain, only convinced enough to stop searching.

---

Consequences of the False Belief Period

The period of false belief has consequences that persist after acceptance. Time was lost. Money was spent on searches and specialists. Heirs' expectations were maintained and then disappointed. Estate administration was delayed. Other responsibilities may have suffered from divided attention.

Relationships may suffer from the false belief period. Heirs who were told keys would be found feel deceived when told they cannot be found. The executor who maintained hope must now explain why the hope was misplaced. The blame for the situation may fall on the executor even though they acted on reasonable belief.

Tax and legal complications may arise from the delay. Deadlines approached or passed while searching continued. Valuations became complicated by uncertainty about asset accessibility. The estate timeline stretched beyond normal parameters. These complications stem from actions taken—or delayed—because of the false belief.

---

The Gap Between Owning and Accessing

The executor's false belief reflects a misunderstanding about bitcoin: that owning bitcoin implies access to it. For traditional assets, ownership typically means access—the owner can reach the asset or institutions can facilitate access. For bitcoin, ownership and access are separate. Someone can own bitcoin they cannot access.

This gap is unintuitive. The executor applying familiar frameworks expects that if bitcoin exists, access to it must also exist somewhere. They do not naturally consider that access might have been lost while the bitcoin itself persists on the blockchain. The conceptual gap creates the false belief.

The deceased may have shared this misunderstanding. They may have believed their bitcoin was accessible when it was not. They may have lost keys without realizing the implications. The false belief the executor holds may have originated with the deceased—inherited along with the inaccessible bitcoin.

---

Outcome

Executor thinks bitcoin keys exist but don't describes a false belief that shapes estate administration. The executor assumes keys are somewhere, waiting to be found. They search, hire specialists, maintain heir expectations, and delay acceptance—all based on a premise that is not true.

The false belief arises from reasonable inference and family reinforcement but does not account for keys that were never created, were destroyed, or were lost without trace. The belief persists because non-existence cannot be proven; it can only be pragmatically accepted after sufficient failed searching.

When the executor thinks bitcoin keys exist but they do not, time and resources flow toward finding what cannot be found. The search has no natural endpoint. Acceptance comes eventually but leaves behind lost time, spent money, disappointed heirs, and estate complications—all consequences of acting on a belief that was false from the beginning.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Executor Doesn't Understand Bitcoin

Executor Authority vs Bitcoin Signer

← Return to CustodyStress