# Concept Review: B-SSL (Bitcoin Secure Signing Layer) — Covenant-Free Vault Model Using Taproot, CSV, and CLTV **URL:** \ **Category:** Protocol Design\ **Created:** [October 11, 2025, 11:42am UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/concept-review-b-ssl-bitcoin-secure-signing-layer-covenant-free-vault-model-using-taproot-csv-and-cltv/2047 "2025-10-11T11:42:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 10
**Author:** ![Bicaru20](https://delvingbitcoin.org/user_avatar/delvingbitcoin.org/bicaru20/32/1552_2.png) [@Bicaru20](https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/Bicaru20)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2025, 10:40pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/concept-review-b-ssl-bitcoin-secure-signing-layer-covenant-free-vault-model-using-taproot-csv-and-cltv/2047/10 "2025-10-25T22:40:46Z")
**Hi,** If I understand correctly, the main goal is to prevent key loss from being permanent and to provide a way for the user to recover the funds. However, I’m struggling to see how this achieves that because: - If the user loses **Key A** (the primary key), the only way to recover the funds is through **Path 3** after a long delay (e.g., 3 years). This effectively means trusting custodians who hold shares like B1 and C. - On the other hand, if the user doesn’t lose **Key A** , why would they use **Path 1** or **Path 2** , since they still have full control of the private key? I think I am missing something 😅 --- _[View the full topic](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/concept-review-b-ssl-bitcoin-secure-signing-layer-covenant-free-vault-model-using-taproot-csv-and-cltv/2047)._