Legal Authority vs Technical Access Bitcoin as Parallel Systems

Legal Permission and Technical Capability Misalignment

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

Two Systems Running Separately

Someone encounters a situation where legal permission and actual capability to move bitcoin do not align. The gap between legal authority vs technical access bitcoin becomes visible when one exists without the other. A person may have the legal right to control bitcoin but lack the ability to move it. Another person may have the ability to move bitcoin but lack any legal right to do so.

This analysis covers how legal authority and technical access operate as parallel systems that do not automatically connect. Traditional assets have institutions that bridge these systems. Self-custody bitcoin has no such bridge. The gap between authority and access persists until someone deliberately connects them, and even then the connection depends on arrangements that can break.

---

Two Systems Running Separately

Legal authority operates through documents, relationships, and institutional recognition. Courts issue orders. Wills name executors. Trusts appoint trustees. Powers of attorney designate agents. These instruments create recognized authority within the legal system. Institutions like banks and brokerages honor this authority by granting access to assets they control.

Technical access operates through cryptographic possession. Whoever knows the seed phrase can derive private keys. Whoever holds the hardware wallet with the correct PIN can sign transactions. The blockchain validates signatures mathematically. No document check occurs. No relationship verification happens. The network processes valid signatures regardless of who produced them.

These systems run on different foundations. Legal authority rests on social agreement enforced by courts and institutions. Technical access rests on mathematical relationships between keys and signatures. Neither system knows about the other. Neither system can reach into the other to create what it needs.

For traditional assets, institutions connect the systems. A bank holds money and recognizes legal authority, releasing funds to authorized parties. The bank serves as a bridge—legal authority reaches the bank, and the bank provides access. Self-custody bitcoin has no equivalent bridge. The two systems run parallel without intersection.

---

Legal Authority Without Technical Access

A person with legal authority but no technical access holds an empty permission. They are allowed to act but cannot act. Their authority exists in one system while the capability they need exists in another system they cannot reach.

Executors commonly encounter this situation. The probate court confirms their authority over estate assets. Letters testamentary prove their right to act. Banks and brokerages honor these documents. But when the estate includes self-custody bitcoin, the documents accomplish nothing. The executor has legal authority over bitcoin they cannot touch.

Trustees face the same gap. A trust instrument clearly grants them powers over trust property. Their fiduciary duty requires them to manage trust assets prudently. If the trust holds bitcoin and no one provided the seed phrase, the trustee's duty exceeds their capability. They are obligated to do something they cannot do.

The gap creates practical paralysis. The person with authority knows what they want to accomplish but lacks the means. They may spend time and money searching for access materials that may not exist. They may consult experts who can explain the gap but cannot close it. The authority they hold provides no pathway to the technical capability they need.

---

Technical Access Without Legal Authority

A person with technical access but no legal authority holds a dangerous capability. They can act but are not permitted to act. Their capability exists in one system while the permission they need exists in another system that may not recognize them.

This situation appears when access materials spread beyond authorized parties. A family member who was shown a seed phrase during a casual moment has technical access. A technician who helped configure custody has technical access. A friend who was told a passphrase as a backup measure has technical access. None may have documented legal authority to use what they can use.

Technical access without authority creates temptation and risk. The person can move bitcoin easily. Moving it may seem harmless or even helpful. But without legal authority, their action may constitute theft, conversion, or breach of duty depending on circumstances. The ease of technical action contrasts with the legal consequences that may follow.

This gap also creates uncertainty for the person with access. They may not know whether they have legal authority. Documents they have not seen may grant or deny them permission. Their relationship to the holder may or may not create implied authority. Acting on technical access without clarity about legal authority means acting into uncertainty.

---

Why the Systems Do Not Connect

Traditional asset custody developed within a legal framework. Banks, brokerages, and registries exist partly to implement legal ownership. They check authority before allowing action. They serve as enforcement points where legal rules meet asset control. The systems connect because institutions designed them to connect.

Bitcoin developed outside this framework. The network was designed to operate without trusting third parties. No institution checks authority because no institution controls access. The cryptographic design deliberately separates asset control from institutional mediation. This separation is a feature of the system, not a bug.

The separation that provides freedom from institutional control also creates the authority-access gap. When no institution mediates between legal authority and technical access, nothing bridges them automatically. The holder must create the bridge through deliberate planning. If they do not, the systems remain parallel.

The gap cannot be closed from the legal side alone. No court order can produce a seed phrase. No legal document can generate cryptographic capability. The legal system can assign authority, impose consequences, and adjudicate disputes, but it cannot reach into the cryptographic system to create access that does not exist.

---

Underlying Assumptions Break Down

Estate planning, trust administration, and fiduciary law developed with institutional assets in mind. These frameworks assume that legal authority can be presented to a gatekeeper who then grants access. The assumption is so embedded that it often goes unstated. Professionals trained in these fields may not realize when the assumption fails.

An attorney drafting an estate plan may name an executor and assume that naming creates effective control. For bank accounts, this assumption holds. For self-custody bitcoin, it does not. The document names the executor but does not enable them. The plan appears complete while leaving a critical gap.

A trustee accepting appointment may assume their fiduciary powers include access to trust assets. For assets held through institutions, this assumption holds. For self-custody bitcoin, the trust instrument grants powers the trustee cannot exercise. They accept duties without the means to fulfill them.

These broken assumptions create surprises when the gap surfaces. The executor discovers their authority means nothing. The trustee discovers their powers are empty. The surprise comes precisely because the institutional assumption was invisible until it failed. No one planned for a world where legal authority and technical access run parallel without connection.

---

The Gap During Life Events

The authority-access gap surfaces most painfully during life events that trigger transitions. Death requires estate administration. Incapacity requires someone to take over management. Divorce requires asset division. Each event involves legal processes that assume access follows authority.

At death, executors appointed in wills discover their legal standing does not translate to control. The probate process confirms their authority while the bitcoin remains unmovable. Beneficiaries expecting inheritance find that what they are entitled to receive cannot be delivered. The legal process runs to completion while the asset stays frozen.

During incapacity, agents under powers of attorney discover their authority cannot reach self-custody bitcoin. The principal cannot provide access because they are incapacitated. The agent has permission to act but no ability to act. The incapacity that created the need also prevents the solution.

In divorce, one spouse may have legal claims to bitcoin controlled by the other spouse. The court can order division but cannot compel production of a seed phrase. The spouse with technical access may comply with court orders or may not. Legal authority over marital property runs into the reality that technical access determines actual control.

---

Bridging Requires Deliberate Action

The gap between legal authority and technical access can only be bridged through deliberate action by someone with both. Typically this means the holder while alive and capable. They can grant legal authority through documents and provide technical access through sharing materials or creating mechanisms for access transfer.

Bridging requires coordination between the legal and technical domains. The people named in documents need to be the same people who receive access materials or know how to obtain them. This coordination does not happen automatically. Different professionals may handle the legal and technical sides without connecting them.

The bridge can also break over time. Access materials change when custody is reorganized. Documents stay the same while the underlying custody evolves. What was once bridged becomes unbridged as the pieces drift apart. Maintaining the bridge requires ongoing attention that holders may not provide.

If no bridge exists when a triggering event occurs, the gap becomes permanent for that asset. The holder who could have bridged the systems is dead or incapacitated. No one else can create what the holder did not arrange. The authority-access gap solidifies into permanent separation.

---

Assessment

Legal authority vs technical access bitcoin describes a fundamental gap where two systems operate independently. Legal authority comes from documents and relationships recognized by courts and institutions. Technical access comes from possessing cryptographic materials that produce valid signatures. Neither system can create what the other provides.

Traditional assets have institutional bridges connecting authority to access. Self-custody bitcoin lacks these bridges. The gap appears when someone has legal authority without technical access, or technical access without legal authority. Either situation creates problems that the other system cannot solve.

The gap surfaces during life events like death, incapacity, and divorce. Institutional assumptions embedded in legal frameworks break down when applied to self-custody bitcoin. Bridging the gap requires deliberate coordination that the holder must arrange while capable. Without such bridging, legal authority and technical access remain parallel systems that never meet.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Who Can Legally Act on My Bitcoin If Incapacitated

The Authority-Access Gap in Bitcoin Custody

← Return to CustodyStress