Is My Bitcoin Setup Good Enough

Evaluating Whether Current Setup Is Sufficient

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

The Missing Reference Point

A bitcoin holder completes their custody setup. Time passes without incident. A question forms: is my bitcoin setup good enough? The question seeks validation or identification of gaps. It wants a yes or no answer, or at least a rating. But the question contains undefined terms that make a clear answer elusive.

This memo looks at why questions of sufficiency resist straightforward answers. "Good enough" implies a standard. The standard depends on variables the question does not specify: what threats matter, what scenarios are anticipated, what level of complexity is tolerable, what failure probability is acceptable. Without defining these variables, the question floats without anchor.

---

The Missing Reference Point

The phrase "good enough" requires a reference point. Good enough for what? Good enough compared to what? Good enough according to whom? These specifications are absent from the question as typically asked. The holder wants an answer but has not defined the criteria for answering.

Different reference points produce different answers. A setup might be good enough for protecting against casual theft but not good enough for protecting against sophisticated attack. It might be good enough for a holder who expects to live another forty years but not good enough for a holder who might die tomorrow. It might be good enough for someone comfortable with technology but not good enough for heirs who are not.

The holder asking the question often has an implicit reference point they have not articulated. They are comparing their setup to something—a vague sense of what others do, a standard absorbed from online reading, an intuition about what feels right. These implicit comparisons produce feelings of adequacy or inadequacy without producing clear criteria.

Without an explicit reference point, answers to the question become arbitrary. "Yes, good enough" and "no, not good enough" can both be defended depending on which reference point is chosen. The question appears to be about the setup when it is really about what standard to apply.

---

Threat Dependency

What counts as "good enough" depends on which threats are being defended against. A setup that defeats one threat may fall to another. The question of sufficiency requires specifying which threats matter and how much protection against each is expected.

Casual theft requires different protection than targeted attack. Fire requires different protection than flood. Device failure requires different protection than memory failure. Death requires different protection than incapacity. Each threat has its own pathways and its own countermeasures. No setup addresses all threats equally.

The holder may not have thought carefully about which threats apply to their situation. They defend against the threats they can imagine while remaining unaware of threats they have not considered. Their setup is good enough against the imagined threats and unknown against the unimagined ones.

Threat models also change over time. A threat that seemed remote becomes relevant. A threat that dominated thinking fades as circumstances shift. A setup designed for one threat environment encounters a different one. Whether the setup is good enough depends on which threat environment it faces, and this changes without the holder noticing.

---

Scenario Dependency

Sufficiency also depends on which scenarios the setup must survive. Normal operation is one scenario. Death is another. Incapacity is a third. Divorce, estrangement, geographic relocation, legal dispute—each represents a different scenario with different demands on the custody arrangement.

A setup that works for normal operation may fail entirely for inheritance. A setup that works for inheritance may fail for incapacity. A setup that handles individual failure may fail when multiple components degrade simultaneously. Each scenario places distinct requirements on the system.

The holder who asks "is this good enough" may be thinking only of one scenario—typically normal operation or perhaps death. Other scenarios exist outside their consideration. The setup may be good enough for the scenarios they have thought about and entirely inadequate for the scenarios they have not.

Scenarios also interact in complex ways. A holder might have a plan for death. But what if death is preceded by a period of incapacity during which the plan cannot be communicated? The combination of scenarios matters, not just each scenario in isolation. Few holders map these combinations when evaluating their setups.

---

Personal Variability

What is good enough varies by person. Technical ability differs. Risk tolerance differs. Life circumstances differ. Family relationships differ. A setup that works well for one person may be entirely inappropriate for another, even if the bitcoin amount is identical.

Technical ability affects what complexity is manageable. A holder comfortable with cryptographic concepts can manage more sophisticated arrangements than a holder who finds technology confusing. A setup requiring regular technical maintenance may be good enough for one holder and unsustainable for another.

Risk tolerance shapes what trade-offs are acceptable. Some holders accept higher complexity for lower theft risk. Others accept higher theft risk for lower complexity. Neither position is objectively correct. Each represents a different weighting of concerns that produces a different standard for "good enough."

Family circumstances affect inheritance requirements. A holder with trusted, technically capable heirs faces different challenges than a holder with young children, estranged relatives, or no obvious beneficiaries. The setup good enough for one family structure may be unsuited to another.

---

The Absence of Universal Standards

No universal standard exists for bitcoin custody adequacy. Unlike some domains where professional standards or regulatory requirements define minimums, custody arrangements lack authoritative benchmarks. What exists instead is a collection of practices, preferences, and opinions that vary widely.

This absence of standards means the holder cannot look up the answer. There is no checklist that, if satisfied, guarantees sufficiency. There is no credential that certifies a setup as adequate. The holder must make their own judgment about their own situation, without external validation to confirm their conclusion.

Different sources offer different views. One expert emphasizes hardware wallet security. Another emphasizes backup redundancy. A third emphasizes inheritance planning. Each perspective highlights different aspects of custody. Following one expert's view produces a different setup than following another's.

The holder seeking to know if their setup is good enough encounters this disagreement. They find confident opinions that contradict each other. They find practices presented as essential by some and unnecessary by others. The search for an answer produces more questions rather than resolution.

---

Temporal Instability

Even if a setup is good enough today, it may not be good enough tomorrow. Circumstances change. Technology evolves. Threats shift. Relationships change. A judgment of sufficiency made at one time does not hold indefinitely.

The setup degrades over time. Materials fade or fail. Memories become uncertain. Software becomes outdated. What was a robust arrangement becomes a fragile one as its components age. A setup good enough when fresh may become inadequate through natural decay.

Life changes also affect sufficiency. Marriage, divorce, children, moves, career changes, health changes—each alters the context in which the custody arrangement exists. A setup designed for one life situation may become unsuited to the life that actually unfolds.

This temporal instability means "good enough" is not a permanent state to achieve. It is a moving target that requires ongoing attention. A holder who concludes their setup is good enough and then stops thinking about it may find, years later, that it has become inadequate without any single moment of failure.

---

The Question Behind the Question

The question "is my bitcoin setup good enough" often masks deeper uncertainties. The holder may be looking for reassurance. They may be looking for permission to stop worrying. They may be looking for validation that their choices were correct. These emotional needs accompany the technical question.

Reassurance is not the same as evaluation. A holder seeking reassurance wants to hear "yes, you're fine." A holder seeking evaluation wants an honest assessment that might reveal problems. The question sounds the same but seeks different answers depending on what the holder actually needs.

Permission to stop worrying conflicts with the reality that custody requires ongoing attention. The holder may want to close the chapter on custody decisions and move on. The nature of custody does not allow this. Setups require maintenance, review, and updating. The question seeks closure that the domain does not provide.

Validation of past choices creates its own distortion. The holder who has already made choices may be invested in those choices being correct. They ask whether their setup is good enough while hoping the answer is yes. This bias shapes how they receive and interpret any response.

---

Scenarios Where Sufficiency Breaks Down

A holder feels confident in their setup because a hardware wallet protects their bitcoin. Years pass. The holder dies. The hardware wallet requires a PIN the family does not know and a passphrase no one recorded. The setup was good enough for the holder's lifetime but not good enough for what came after.

A holder stores seed phrase backups in two locations. Both locations are in the same geographic region. A regional disaster affects both. The holder considered redundancy but not geographic diversity. The setup was good enough for local incidents but not good enough for regional events.

A holder creates a multisig arrangement with three participants. Two participants have a falling out and refuse to cooperate. The third participant cannot sign alone. The setup was good enough when relationships were stable but not good enough when they fractured.

In each case, the setup possessed qualities that seemed adequate. Each also possessed vulnerabilities that only particular scenarios would expose. Whether the setup was good enough depends on which scenario arrived.

---

Conclusion

The question of whether a bitcoin setup is good enough resists clear answers because it contains undefined variables. "Good enough" implies a standard, but the standard depends on which threats matter, which scenarios are anticipated, and what trade-offs are acceptable. Without specifying these, the question cannot be answered directly.

Different reference points produce different answers. A setup may be good enough by one measure and inadequate by another. No universal standard exists to resolve these differences. The holder must make their own judgment about their own situation using criteria they define for themselves.

Sufficiency also changes over time. A setup that was good enough when created may become inadequate as circumstances shift and components degrade. The question seeks a stable answer in a domain that does not provide stability. What seems resolved today may become uncertain tomorrow.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Bitcoin Custody Maturity Level as an Imported Framework

Is My Bitcoin Custody Actually Safe

← Return to CustodyStress