I'm not an expert, but I think it should be possible to send 84win 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?
I'm not an expert, but I think it should be possible to send 84win 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?

I'm not an expert, but I think it should be possible to send 84win 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?

I'm not an expert, but I think it should be possible to send 84win 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?