Single Sig Good Enough Bitcoin

Single-Signature Custody Sufficiency and Limits

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

What Single-Signature Provides

Holders who encounter pressure to adopt multisig sometimes push back. They ask whether single sig is good enough for their bitcoin, sensing that the complexity demanded of them may exceed what their situation requires. This question reflects resistance to complexity creep and desire to understand what actually matches their needs.

Adequacy depends on context. What counts as enough protection varies by holding amount, threat exposure, technical capability, and what failure modes the holder fears most. Single-signature custody fails in certain ways and succeeds in others. Whether those tradeoffs work for a particular holder requires examining their specific situation rather than applying universal standards.

---

What Single-Signature Provides

Single-signature custody means one key controls the bitcoin. One seed phrase backs up that key. One set of access credentials unlocks everything. This simplicity carries advantages that complexity cannot replicate.

Clarity of control reduces confusion. The holder knows exactly where their bitcoin is and how to access it. No coordination required, no multiple devices to track, no complex recovery procedures to remember. What exists fits in the holder's head without strain.

Operational simplicity reduces error opportunities. Fewer components mean fewer chances to make mistakes. Transactions require one signature, not coordinated signing across devices. Backups involve one seed phrase, not multiple. Each reduction in steps reduces places where things go wrong.

Maintainability improves with simplicity. A single-signature setup demands less ongoing attention than multisig. One device to verify, one backup to check, one procedure to remember. Holders who struggle to maintain complex systems may sustain simple ones more reliably over time.

---

What Single-Signature Lacks

Single points of failure concentrate risk. If the one key is compromised, everything is lost. If the one backup is destroyed, access disappears. No redundancy absorbs individual failures. The simplicity that reduces complexity also removes safety margins.

Theft of the seed phrase equals theft of the bitcoin. Unlike multisig, where a thief needs multiple keys, single-signature makes one secret the entire target. Physical theft, digital compromise, or social engineering that captures the seed phrase succeeds completely. No second factor stops the attacker.

Coercion scenarios favor attackers against single-signature holders. A holder who can be forced to reveal their seed phrase under duress loses everything. Multisig can distribute keys in ways that prevent any one person from surrendering total control. Single-signature offers no such protection.

Lost access from single failure becomes permanent. A fire that destroys the only backup, a forgotten passphrase with no alternative path, a corrupted device with no redundancy—any of these can result in total loss. The same concentration that simplifies normal operation creates catastrophic failure modes.

---

Threat Model Determines Adequacy

Whether single-signature suffices depends on what threatens the specific holder. Different people face different risks. A custody approach that adequately addresses one threat model may fail to address another.

Holders whose primary concern is their own error may find single-signature adequate. Backup discipline, secure storage, and careful procedures can address lost access risk without adding keys. The threats that single-signature handles poorly—multi-key compromise, sophisticated targeted attacks—may not apply.

Low-profile holders face different threats than public figures. Someone who has never publicly discussed bitcoin holdings attracts less targeted attention. Opportunistic threats dominate; sophisticated attackers look elsewhere. The protections multisig provides against determined attackers may defend against attackers who were never coming.

Geographic and social context shapes risk. Stable living situations, low crime environments, and trustworthy household members reduce physical security concerns. Holders in these circumstances face threats that single-signature with good practices can address. Adding multisig defends against scenarios that may not realistically occur.

---

Amount Held and Proportionality

Protection effort logically scales with what is protected. A holder whose bitcoin represents a small portion of their net worth faces different proportionality considerations than one whose bitcoin is their primary asset.

Small holdings may not justify extensive security infrastructure. The time, money, and mental energy required for multisig represent real costs. If those costs approach or exceed the value protected, the investment becomes questionable regardless of theoretical security benefits.

Relative importance matters alongside absolute amount. Bitcoin worth ten thousand dollars might represent everything to one person and pocket change to another. The same custody approach may be inadequate for the first and excessive for the second. Dollar amounts alone do not determine what is appropriate.

Future value uncertainty complicates the calculation. Holdings that seem small today could become significant if bitcoin appreciates substantially. Holders must decide whether to build custody for current value or potential future value—a judgment that cannot be made with certainty.

---

Capability Matching

Effective custody matches the holder's actual capabilities. A setup that exceeds what the holder can reliably manage provides less real-world protection than its theoretical design suggests. Single-signature may provide better protection for holders who would struggle with more complex approaches.

Technical skill varies widely among bitcoin holders. Some find multisig concepts intuitive and maintenance tasks manageable. Others find even single-signature challenging and would be overwhelmed by multiple keys. Self-knowledge about where one falls on this spectrum affects what custody makes sense.

Available time and attention constrain maintenance capacity. Holders with demanding jobs, family responsibilities, or health challenges may lack bandwidth for complex custody maintenance. A simple approach they actually maintain outperforms a complex approach they neglect.

Comfort with complexity affects execution quality. Holders who feel confident and capable in their custody setup execute procedures more carefully than those who feel confused and anxious. The psychological match between holder and approach influences real-world outcomes.

---

Backup Discipline as the Critical Factor

For single-signature custody, backup quality determines whether the approach succeeds or fails. The single point of failure concern evaporates if the backup is robust. It materializes if the backup is weak. This makes backup discipline the central requirement.

Redundant backup storage addresses the single-copy problem. Multiple copies of the seed phrase, stored in geographically separate locations, protect against localized disasters. A house fire destroys one copy; the other remains. This redundancy partially compensates for the single-key architecture.

Security of backup storage determines theft resistance. A seed phrase stored carelessly invites compromise. The same seed phrase stored in a proper fire safe, in a location known only to the holder, with appropriate physical security, resists most realistic threats. Storage quality matters more than key quantity for many threat models.

Verification habits maintain backup integrity over time. Backups that are never checked may have degraded, been moved, or been misremembered. Regular verification—confirming that backups exist, remain accessible, and function—catches problems before they become crises. Discipline substitutes for architectural redundancy.

---

Inheritance Considerations

Single-signature can simplify inheritance while creating specific risks. Heirs face one key to find, one procedure to execute, one set of instructions to follow. This clarity helps non-technical heirs who would struggle with multisig complexity.

Discovery risk increases with single-signature. One secret in one location can be lost, forgotten, or never found by heirs. No redundant paths lead to the bitcoin. Either heirs find the seed phrase or they do not inherit—nothing in between.

Documentation requirements differ. Single-signature inheritance documentation can be shorter and simpler because fewer components need explanation. But the documentation becomes critical—if it fails, no backup path exists. The stakes on documentation quality may actually be higher than with multisig.

Heir capability strongly affects this calculation. Heirs who could never manage multisig may successfully handle single-signature inheritance. Heirs who need the redundancy multisig provides may not. What counts as enough for inheritance depends on who will inherit.

---

The Adequacy Question Properly Framed

Asking whether single sig is good enough for bitcoin invites a comparative judgment. Enough compared to what? Good enough for what purposes? Against which threats? These specifications determine whether any answer makes sense.

Perfect security does not exist in any custody approach. Every method has failure modes. Single-signature fails in specific ways; multisig fails in different ways. Adequacy means acceptable tradeoffs for a particular situation, not absence of risk.

What one holder finds adequate another may find insufficient. This variation reflects legitimate differences in circumstances, risk tolerance, and priorities—not misunderstanding or error. Two people can correctly reach opposite conclusions because their situations genuinely differ.

The question itself reflects appropriate skepticism. Holders who ask whether simpler custody might suffice are thinking critically about their needs rather than blindly accepting maximum-security prescriptions. This evaluation represents sound judgment, not security negligence.

---

Summary

Whether single sig is good enough for bitcoin depends on the specific holder's threat model, capability, amount held, and inheritance needs. Single-signature provides simplicity, clarity, and maintainability while creating single points of failure that can result in total loss from key compromise or backup destruction.

Backup discipline becomes the critical factor for single-signature holders. Redundant backup storage, secure backup protection, and regular verification can address many concerns that multisig addresses through architectural redundancy. The approach demands different discipline rather than less discipline.

Adequacy cannot be determined abstractly. A holder who faces realistic threats that single-signature handles poorly may need multisig. A holder whose actual risks center on self-inflicted loss from complexity may be better served by simpler custody well maintained. The answer emerges from honest assessment of individual circumstances, not universal prescription.

---

System Context

Examining Bitcoin Custody Under Stress

Danger Framing Without Scenario Context

Not Confident in My Bitcoin Setup

← Return to CustodyStress