A Proposed Modification to Bitcoin Inheritance Protocol

[Alvin_talk]

Hello friends, I have been researching in this forum about Bitcoin inheritance protocol for a while now and I have come across different threads.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5185907.msg52497274#msg52497274
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5512560.msg64615711#msg64615711

Many of these threads only focus on time locked transaction.
Disadvantage: What if the supposed heir doesn't have a bitcoin address.

Though I am a newbie but this is my proposal and please correct me where necessary and do not underrate my opinion because of my rank. Thank you in advance!

Proposal:
What if a system is created where the holder and the heir have two different set of seed phrases. One for the holder and the other for the heir.

Criteria:
-The seed phrase of the heir cannot access the wallet/address until N years as stipulated by the holder.
- Only after N years can the heir access the wallet/address.

Question:
What if the holder is alive till N years?
Answer:
Then the holder have to login a day before N years to modify the duration.

N/B: N is an integer ranging from 1, 2, 3.......

Advantages of this proposed method:
- Only the holder can have access to this account until he/she passes away.
- Eliminates any risk of the heir harming the account holder to gain early access to the inheritance.

Again, I am not a developer, this is just my opinion to developers and the community so feel free to let me know if this makes sense.

[Ambatman]

This would be done through a Bitcoin script.
I think your proposal is quite similar to a thread that was started a week or two
So I'd share what I shared.

What I can think of is using Bitcoin scripts. One on Timelock

Code:

CheckLockTimeVerify

can help with that.
One path that would verify your Pubkeys directly Incase of an override and the other path to meet the conditions set by you
Including the wait period which you can measure in block time.


There's a current BIP in 2025 BIP 347 OP_CAT that would make such vault action easier

Again is quite similar to previous opinions so I can't really tell the difference.

Eliminates any risk of the heir harming the account holder to gain early access to the inheritance.

No set up is 100% Risk free.

[ABCbits]

Hello friends, I have been researching in this forum about Bitcoin inheritance protocol for a while now and I have come across different threads.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5185907.msg52497274#msg52497274
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5512560.msg64615711#msg64615711

Many of these threads only focus on time locked transaction.
Disadvantage: What if the supposed heir doesn't have a bitcoin address.

Proposal:
What if a system is created where the holder and the heir have two different set of seed phrases. One for the holder and the other for the heir.

Do realize that if the heir have seed phrase, that means the heir can use Bitcoin wallet software to generate address?

Question:
What if the holder is alive till N years?
Answer:
Then the holder have to login a day before N years to modify the duration.

N/B: N is an integer ranging from 1, 2, 3......

Bitcoin itself is decentralized, so "login" doesn't make sense here. It would make sense if we talk about centralized inheritance service.

[odolvlobo]

I'm not an expert, but I think it should be possible to send bitcoins to a script containing two addresses. One address can unlock the UTXO at any time and the other can unlock the UTXO after a certain time with OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. The owner would provide the first address and the heir would provide the second address.

FYI, Bitcoin transactions know nothing about seeds and wallets.

[stwenhao]

I think it should be possible to send bitcoins to a script containing two addresses.

Of course it is possible. For example:

Code:

OP_DUP OP_HASH160 OP_ROT
OP_IF
  <aliceHash>
OP_ELSE
  <bobHash>
OP_ENDIF
OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG

And then, it can be executed as:

Code:

<aliceSignature> OP_TRUE <alicePubkey>
<aliceSignature> OP_TRUE <alicePubkey> <alicePubkey>
<aliceSignature> OP_TRUE <alicePubkey> <aliceHash>
<aliceSignature> <alicePubkey> <aliceHash> OP_TRUE
<aliceSignature> <alicePubkey> <aliceHash> <aliceHash>
<aliceSignature> <alicePubkey>
OP_TRUE

But also as:

Code:

<bobSignature> OP_FALSE <bobPubkey>
<bobSignature> OP_FALSE <bobPubkey> <bobPubkey>
<bobSignature> OP_FALSE <bobPubkey> <bobHash>
<bobSignature> <bobPubkey> <bobHash> OP_FALSE
<bobSignature> <bobPubkey> <bobHash> <bobHash>
<bobSignature> <bobPubkey>
OP_TRUE

One address can unlock the UTXO at any time and the other can unlock the UTXO after a certain time with OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY

Then, it is just a matter of extending some conditions. For example:

Code:

OP_DUP OP_HASH160 OP_ROT
OP_IF
  <aliceHash>
OP_ELSE
  <time> OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP <bobHash>
OP_ENDIF
OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG

[IIrik11]

I'm not an expert, but I think it should be possible to send bitcoins to a script containing two addresses. One address can unlock the UTXO at any time and the other can unlock the UTXO after a certain time with OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. The owner would provide the first address and the heir would provide the second address.

let's say, the owner sets the timing to say 5 years before the second address is able to spend the funds or 1 year,, this is just for example

but due to unforeseen circumstances s/he dies before 5 years or 1 year and his key gets into wrong hands?

what happens then?

the nominee still cannot use the funds left for them by their father because the time hasn't passed and the one who finds the owner's key gets to steal the funds?

[BTCOIN_COMADO]

I'm not an expert, but I think it should be possible to send bitcoins to a script containing two addresses. One address can unlock the UTXO at any time and the other can unlock the UTXO after a certain time with OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. The owner would provide the first address and the heir would provide the second address.

let's say, the owner sets the timing to say 5 years before the second address is able to spend the funds or 1 year,, this is just for example

but due to unforeseen circumstances s/he dies before 5 years or 1 year and his key gets into wrong hands?

what happens then?

the nominee still cannot use the funds left for them by their father because the time hasn't passed and the one who finds the owner's key gets to steal the funds?

This point you are trying to make has no direct impact on the usefulness of this proposed idea. A key can be stolen at any time depending on the circumstances involved whether or not there are provisions for any inheritance.
In my own understanding, the proposed idea is to protect the owner from the successors who might want a quick inheritance and it has no business with a third party stealing the key as keys can be stolen whether the funds are inheritable or not. Don't you think so?

[IIrik11]

yes, ur right, this idea does prevent the successor from using the owner's funds before the set time.

and yes, a key can be stolen with or without implementation of this idea and it doesn't makes a difference.

i guess owner would have to just keep his seed written somewhere & the passphrase in his mind, so the funds remain safe even if someone gets hold of the seed.

this is very interesting i must say,, will this work using electrum wallet? can someone make a guide, so i can try this using testnet coins?

[satscraper]

Criteria:
-The seed phrase of the heir cannot access the wallet/address until N years as stipulated by the holder.
- Only after N years can the heir access the wallet/address.

More straightforward setup would be:
 -The wallet/address that holds the stash will remain inaccessible to the heir’s SEED/private key until the holder has been inactive for N years.
- The heir ^{with his SEED/prvkey} will only be able to access the wallet/address after N years of the holder's inactivity.

Such setup can be  realized with the use of Liana wallet.

[bigimann]

Hello friends, I have been researching in this forum about Bitcoin inheritance protocol for a while now and I have come across different threads.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5185907.msg52497274#msg52497274
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5512560.msg64615711#msg64615711

Many of these threads only focus on time locked transaction.
Disadvantage: What if the supposed heir doesn't have a bitcoin address.

Though I am a newbie but this is my proposal and please correct me where necessary and do not underrate my opinion because of my rank. Thank you in advance!

Proposal:
What if a system is created where the holder and the heir have two different set of seed phrases. One for the holder and the other for the heir.

Criteria:
-The seed phrase of the heir cannot access the wallet/address until N years as stipulated by the holder.
- Only after N years can the heir access the wallet/address.

Question:
What if the holder is alive till N years?
Answer:
Then the holder have to login a day before N years to modify the duration.

N/B: N is an integer ranging from 1, 2, 3.......

Advantages of this proposed method:
- Only the holder can have access to this account until he/she passes away.
- Eliminates any risk of the heir harming the account holder to gain early access to the inheritance.

Again, I am not a developer, this is just my opinion to developers and the community so feel free to let me know if this makes sense.

If I may, I'll like to add another feature to your suggestions.

Now, after the heir has successfully gain access to the wallet/address after N years, it will be nice that he/she is able to add another heir to the wallet/address, and the cycle repeats.

I know I might sound dumb, but it's just an opinion from a curious newbie.

EDIT: For some of us raising issues about the suggestion seedphrase system by @Alvin_talk being compromised, are you trying to say wallet addresses cannot be stolen under the single seedphrase system? Come on guys, let's give this brilliant mind his trophy.

[Satofan44]

I'm not an expert, but I think it should be possible to send bitcoins to a script containing two addresses. One address can unlock the UTXO at any time and the other can unlock the UTXO after a certain time with OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. The owner would provide the first address and the heir would provide the second address.

FYI, Bitcoin transactions know nothing about seeds and wallets.

I think so too, the only missing link here is for someone to build an user friendly GUI that makes this trivial to do for anyone who wants it. I don't think overly complicated inheritance protocols are needed. If someone needs such a solution, they can invest money to develop something custom themselves. Overall, the more complicated it is and the more time passes the more likely it is that something will go wrong.

Usually the GUI is the missing link to make a lot of what Bitcoin is capable of more accessible to average users.

Such setup can be  realized with the use of Liana wallet.

Such a thing is not good, especially since we are often planning very long timelines for inheritance stuff. The criticism was already raised in that same thread.

I kinda liked it, but I have a natural worry when a product offers features that aren't universally applied via some protocol or BIP. The reason for this is that if the software dies, then what happens?

To mitigate any potential issues I would suggest the setting the shorter period of inactivity for the primary key ^{around 3 months seems optimal to me}. This way either you or haeres can take the necessary actions if needed. It’s hard to imagine something so severe happening in just 3 months that would prevent even unsupported software wallet from managing the funds.

And your response over there does not really work for inheritance. 3 months of key inactivity? I have not touched my cold storage in half a decade or more, I don't even know when I touched it actually it could be much longer than that.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Apologies if it is already mentioned, but what's the problem with the following inheritance plan?

Alice want her son, Bob, to inherit her bitcoin when she passes away. She creates him a bitcoin wallet and signs a transaction transferring many of her coins to one of his addresses, while choosing a locktime far into the future. She hands him over the seed phrase of the new wallet and the transaction in raw file and in physical format (QR).

• If she hasn't passed away before that time, she can invalidate the transaction by spending the coins to herself, and redo the same process to recreate another transaction.
• If she has passed away, then her son can just broadcast the transaction.

What's the problem this way? Seems like the simplest option to my mind.