=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3016/paper2
|storemode=property
|title=How do Bitcoin users manage their private keys?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3016/paper2.pdf
|volume=Vol-3016
|authors=Gunnar Lindqvist,Joakim Kävrestad,Dennis Modig,Ali Padyab
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/stpis/LindqvistKMP21
}}
==How do Bitcoin users manage their private keys?==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3016/paper2.pdf
How do Bitcoin Users Manage Their Private Keys?
Gunnar Lindqvist1 , Joakim Kävrestad1 , Dennis Modig1 and Ali Padyab1
1
University of Skövde, Högskolevägen 1, 541 28 Skövde, Sweden
Abstract
Bitcoin has emerged as the most recognisable cryptocurrency due to its usages as a speculative asset,
medium of exchange and store of value. The fundamental characteristics of trustless and secure sound
money have made it appealing to people. As a result of the immutability of Bitcoin, monetary losses
caused by user security mistakes such as lose possession of private keys may hinder Bitcoin usage. We
surveyed 339 Bitcoin users to explore the interaction between individuals and the technology of Bitcoin
of how they safeguard their Bitcoin private keys. The results showed that users employed technologies
to enhance the protection of their Bitcoin private keys, such as encryption and multi-signature. However,
a proportion of users employed less secure approaches. The study results suggest that users prefer
encrypting their private keys rather than multi-signature due to convenience and ease of use. Hardware
wallets were moreover the most used wallet by the participants.
Keywords
Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency, Private key, Wallet, Backup
1. Introduction
Bitcoin was first introduced in 2008 by the alias Satoshi Nakamoto where a proposal for a peer-
to-peer version of electronic cash based on several concepts and technologies was presented
in a white paper [1]. This digital currency is based on public-key cryptography, where all
transactions are registered on a public open blockchain and secured by the consensus algorithm
proof-of-work. Bitcoin is the first digital currency that solves the problem of double-spending
and makes it possible to send and receive currency without a third party involved [1]. It is
estimated that over half a million transactions take place per day and that Bitcoin is used
by more than 48 million users around the globe [2]. Bitcoin consists of the technologies of
public-key cryptography, blockchain and the consensus algorithm proof-of-work. Combined,
they allow unique technological properties of immutability, decentralisation, trustless, and
permissionless. Private keys provide bitcoin ownership and can create Bitcoin addresses and
digital signatures for transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. The private keys are not stored on
the Bitcoin network but are created and stored through Bitcoin wallets. A Bitcoin wallet makes
it possible to receive, send and see the sum of all UTXOs (unspent transaction outputs) for
the private keys that the wallet manages. Different wallets offer different levels of ease of use
and security [3]. Private keys enable the technological properties of Bitcoin transactions to be
pseudonymous, borderless and censorship-resistant. The Bitcoin network does not differentiate
7th International Workshop on Socio-Technical Perspective in IS development, October11-12, 2021 (STPIS’21)
Envelope-Open lindqvist.gunnar@protonmail.com (G. Lindqvist); joakim.kavrestad@his.se (J. Kävrestad); dennis.modig@his.se
(D. Modig); ali.padyab@his.se (A. Padyab)
© 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Workshop
Proceedings
http://ceur-ws.org
ISSN 1613-0073
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
11
between correctly signed transactions [4]. As described by [5], Social-Technical Systems (STS)
consists of the dynamic of human, social, organisational and technical components. The Bitcoin
ecosystem relies on a technical foundation but requires human users as well as organisational
support and can be viewed as an STS. Bitcoin is seen as a social construct since the users
agree that it has value. Bitcoin has become a social and technical phenomenon where its
use has increased significantly. Furthermore, Bitcoins’ governance for how rules are decided,
implemented, and enforced makes it a social-technical system where a complete consensus is
agreed among all users. For users to socially interact with the exchange of the value of bitcoin, a
Bitcoin wallet is needed. This study addresses how users manage their private keys for Bitcoin
and is aligned towards the social end of the Bitcoin ecosystem. In order to send Bitcoin, a private
key is used in conjunction with a wallet, and it is therefore vital that private keys are handled
with security in mind [4]. Moreover, the choice of the wallet, which manages the private keys, is
essential. As described by [6], there are various types of wallets, and they differ in usability and
security. In contrast, usability is likely to influence the users’ decision on what wallet to choose.
Security, as well as integral, both in terms of availability and confidentiality of the private key,
are important [7]. Disclosing the private keys means giving away complete control over the
spendable bitcoin corresponding to those private keys. As such, sustainability relies on strong
security measures to handle private keys. The protection includes ensuring the confidentiality
of private keys while making unauthorised access impossible.
We consider both cybersecurity and the Bitcoin environment to be socio-technical properties
that are dependant on technical and social factors. It is essential to acknowledge both aspects
to help people interact with the Bitcoin network in a secure way [8]. Previous research has
focused on wallets from a technical point of view where improvement proposals have been put
forward to develop the security of key management [9]. Previous research on users has only
examined a small group of beginners regarding their perception of security and use [7], which
makes our understanding of Bitcoin private key management relatively narrow. There is scant
research on key management practices from the perspective of Bitcoin users. Further, we are
unaware of a study that examines how Bitcoin users manage their private keys. The current
study helps answer the response to unexplored areas within Bitcoin by examining the security
practices of experienced Bitcoin users.
The purpose of this study is to understand the strategies that Bitcoin users employ in the socio-
technical system of Bitcoin to back up their private keys and provide an overview of the types
of wallets used. Besides, the study focus on the social-technical aspects through what strategies
and techniques can be helpful for future research and practice for users regarding the use of
Bitcoin. A survey was distributed to Bitcoin users to determine their private key management
strategies to address the study’s aims. The results show that users make security-conscious
choices when it comes to Bitcoin. Most users are willing to invest in security and perform
backups for the possibility of recovery. We believe that this study presents new and valuable
insights to researchers and practitioners regarding how Bitcoin users manage their private keys.
In extension, this research studies user’s security behaviour in a context where security can be
assumed to be of great importance to the users since a Bitcoin wallet holds a monetary value
and is best compared to a bank account. As such, this research complements existing research
into security behaviour which is typically conducted in domains where security is assumed to
be a secondary target for the users [10].
12
2. Related work
Previous research has focused on providing suggestions for how different implementations
can increase the security of wallets and backups and evaluate and identify security issues that
exist. While Bitcoin wallets are considered as STSs, previous research has focused on technical
aspects. A study by [11] surveyed the number of active users and downloads for different
types of wallets and compared that to other cryptocurrencies. The study showed that there
were between 2.9 million and 5.8 million unique active users of cryptocurrency wallets, and 5.8
million to 11.5 million wallets are likely to be active. The study indicated that the mobile wallet
is the most common type of wallet used.
Research conducted by [9] suggested how a key management scheme can be used to sign
transactions via a password phrase and personal questions that can reset the private key in
case of a loss. Only a bit of the private key is stored locally for increased security in their
proposed scheme. The research concluded that storing private keys on local devices enabled the
possibility of theft, where the key management scheme could reduce that risk. The suggested
method can help novice users manage their private keys.
The report [12] focused on an easier way to back up private keys. Nearly all existing wallets
use a seed phrase for backup, which can be inconvenient and problematic. A proposal relying
on a side-channel via visual verification by a screen was made as a suggestion. With the help
of a hardware card that can store the backup, users did not have to write down the private
key. The proposal used NFC as the transfer method between wallets and the hardware card
to transfer the private key. The research presented a proof-of-concept where the goal was to
create a secure backup transferring mechanism.
Several research efforts have been made regarding the security deficiencies of the different
types of wallets. The research report of [13] explored the security problems that exist for mobile
wallets and cryptocurrency exchanges. The research exposed the risks that come by the use
of those applications [14]. Both reports concluded that users need to know the possible risks
involved and the present potential vulnerabilities.
Authors of [15] conducted a study aimed at hardware wallets that are currently on the market
and reviewed the shortcomings and attacks that existed. In the same area, [16] conducted a
similar study aimed at a software wallet for computers, an SPV wallet and cryptocurrency
exchanges to report the risks and security problems that existed. Even though Bitcoin is
tamper-proof, well-known attacks were still possible, but against users of Bitcoin, both journals
show.
When it comes to social aspects of Bitcoin wallets, in a survey about Bitcoin users, authors
of [7] have investigated what beginners think about the security and use of Bitcoin. The
survey showed that Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency was a significant challenge for many users and
indicated the need for further investigation to understand usability and security issues better.
Our study is different from previous research in that it reported on what types of wallets
users utilise. Another aspect that distinguishes the study is that it focused on the types of
available wallets and not on a single solution. Moreover, our aim in this study was to investigate
the private key management strategies of Bitcoin users, as opposed to the previous literature
in which technical aspects of cryptocurrency wallets has been investigated. The effort has
implications for the designers and researchers of cryptocurrency wallets in helping users
13
increase private keys’ security.
3. Background
Bitcoin allows people to participate in an economic, political, and social life without hin-
drance from a third-party actor. Bitcoin consist of properly socio-technical assemblages. With
blockchain as the underlying technology, socio-technical arrangements of human and non-
human are made [17]. The peer-to-peer exchange of bitcoin between people is made through
asymmetric cryptography where the private key enables Bitcoin transactions, and the public
key derives Bitcoin addresses. A wallet is an application and serves as the primary interface
for a user. A Bitcoin wallet (with the paper wallet as an exception) manages a user’s keys and
allows for the generation of addresses, tracks inputs and outputs, creates and signs transactions
[4]. Research categorises several different wallet formats into four categories: software wallets,
hardware wallets, paper wallets, and web wallets.
A software wallet is an application that runs on a computer or smartphone. The private keys
are stored locally on the device and provides users with complete control of their wallet [13].
Hardware wallets store the private keys on a separate physical device [9]. Signatures are created
locally on the device and then sent to the medium device [18]. Paper wallets have the private
key and corresponding public key written down on a physical item. The private key needs to
be imported if a transaction is to be carried out where one must be aware of the change address
[19]. Web wallets are either custodial or non-custodial, also known as hosted or non-hosted,
which an external provider operates via a web browser. The differences are that hosted web
wallets store the private keys, whereas, in a non-hosted web wallet, the private keys are stored
on the user’s local device [14]. Table 1 gives an overview of wallets types with an assessment of
their security, accessibility and cost, which can influence users regarding their choice of wallet.
Table 1
Types of Bitcoin wallets
Wallet type Security Accessibility Cost
Software wallet Sufficient for lower amount Generally easily accessible Freely available
Web wallet Generally not secure Easily accessible Freely available
Paper wallet Good offline security Hard to access Costs only to print
Hardware wallet Good security Can be cumbersome Not free
There is plenty of free information available and resources for helping users choose a well-
suited wallet regarding their needs and intentions. Information and education for how to
securing a wallet are also available. The registered Bitcoin.org domain used for the white paper
is one example that offers guidance for how to use Bitcoin [20]. Users can search the web for
several courses that are available online, both free and paid. Due to the extensive ecosystem of
Bitcoin, a tremendous amount of information is available. However, a great responsibility lies
with the users to seek out this information.
14
4. Methodology
The aim of the study was met using a web-based survey that intended to understand Bitcoin
user’s security behaviour regarding their selection of wallet type, backup procedures for private
keys and practices for signing transactions. The survey was developed and piloted to ensure
that participants could easily understand it, as suggested by [21]. The pilot test was first done
to clarify ambiguities. The pilot test was published on the Facebook group ”Bitcoin Sweden”
2020-04-15, where the group at the time of publication consisted of 8348 members. Communities
of Bitcoin users were used in the pilot and the final sampling because of the surveys outspoken
objective of measuring the actions of Bitcoin users.
The final questionnaire was distributed via the survey web app LimeSurvey, which was
installed on a virtual machine. It consisted of five questions, and several predefined response
options were sent out. The following five questions were asked in the survey. 1) What kind of
wallet do you use to store the majority of your bitcoin? 2) Do you use multi-signature to sign
transactions for that wallet? 3) Do you have a backup(s) of your private key for that wallet? 4)
If yes, in what ways is the key backed up? and 5) Is your backup encrypted?. The survey began
with a welcome page that explained the purpose, what all data would be used for and how
personal data would be handled. The survey was completely anonymous, where no personal
data such as IP address, email or geographical location was collected. The survey was designed
to be conducted quickly and had a simple language to remove confusion. A reward in bitcoin
was offered to increase the number of responses and validity. The survey was published on ”/ r
/ Bitcoin /” 23-04-2020 at 12:00 and was closed on 27-04-2020 at 23:59.
For data analysis, the gathered data was treated as nominal data, and the frequency of
respondents in each category reported as described by [22]. Confidence Intervals (CI) was
calculated to identify what categories that were separated from easy other with statistical
significance as described by [23]. Thus, categories with overlapping CI were considered to be
equally favoured by the respondents. The common significance level of 95% was adopted in
this study.
5. Survey results
The survey page had 553 visits during the time the survey was open and was completed by 339
respondents. The first question was ”What kind of wallet do you use to store the majority of
your bitcoin?” and intended to provide an overview of the most common wallet types, which in
turn indicates what wallet types are perceived as most secure by the community. The answer
options and results are presented in Table 2.
As seen in Table 2, Hardware wallets are the most used wallet types and are used as the
primary wallet by 46.6% of the respondents. Software wallets stored locally on a mobile or
computer or stored on a hosted service share a second-place since they all have overlapping
CI and each of them is the primary wallet type of about 15% of the respondents. The second
question was ”Do you use multi-signature to sign transactions for that wallet?” and intended to
provide insight into how frequently Bitcoin users use multiple signatures to sign transactions as
an added layer of security. The results of this question are presented in Table 3, which suggests
15
Table 2
Results and Confidence Intervals for question 1: What kind of wallet do you use to store the majority of
your bitcoin?
Option Frequency Percentage CI(+-)
Software wallet on mobile 59 17.4 4
Software wallet on computer 54 15.93 3.9
Hosted web wallet 42 12.39 3.5
Non-hosted web wallet 3 0.88 1
Paper wallet 21 6.91 2.6
Hardware wallet 158 46.61 5.3
(Other) Self-generated 1 0.29 0.6
(Other) Bitcoin node 1 0.29 0.6
that a minority of the participants only employs multi-signature.
Table 3
Results and Confidence Intervals for question 2: Do you use multi-signature to sign transactions for
that wallet?
Option Frequency Percentage CI(+-)
Yes 117 34.5 5.1
No 222 65.5 5.1
The third question and fourth questions were ”Do you have a backup(s) of your private key
for that wallet?” and ”If yes, in what ways is the key backed up?”. 88.20% of the respondents do
back up their wallets, and the types of backups used by the participants are displayed in Table
4, note that participants could pick several answers.
Table 4
Results and Confidence Intervals for question 4: Do you have a backup(s) of your private key for that
wallet?
Option Frequency Percentage CI(+-)
On a piece of paper 238 54.84 4.7
On an external drive 71 16.36 3.5
On an internal drive 25 5.76 2.2
On a cloud service 33 7.60 2.5
On an email 10 2.30 1.4
Stored in brain memory 37 8.53 2.6
(Other) Private cloud 1 0.23 0.5
(Other) Engraved on metal plate 17 3.92 1.8
(Other) Custodial 1 0.23 0.5
(Other) 3-2-1 backup 1 0.23 0.5
The results from question three and four suggest that the vast majority of the respondents
back up their wallets. Further, as demonstrated by the fact that there are 434 answers to question
16
four, many respondents use more than one means of backup with papers-based backups as the,
by far, most prominent method. The final question was whether or not the participants encrypt
their backups. It was found that 20 (59.9%) of the respondents answered that they did not
encrypt their backups. However, that result should be interpreted in light of most participants
using paper-based backups, which are hard to encrypt.
6. Analysis
The results show that socio-technical choices of Bitcoin users regarding handling their wallets
are interwoven. Below, we elaborate on the interaction between the technological properties
of Bitcoin and the strategies that users employ for their choices. The survey indicates that
Bitcoin users are security-aware when managing private keys, especially regarding the backup
them. The reason is that losing the private key means losing the Bitcoin it can transact. The
difference from ordinary fiat currency (Traditional government-issued currency) is that the
security is based on one’s own choices dependent on technical and social factors. With a bank,
one does not have complete control of the security, but on the contrary, the responsibility lies
with the user with Bitcoin. Further, a property that Bitcoin possesses compared to fiat currency
is immutability which can also be a significant factor in taking security measures. A signed
Bitcoin transaction cannot be reversed once it is broadcast and accepted to a block on the Bitcoin
blockchain. These reasons are likely to make people willing to make well-thought-out security
decisions and explain why so many participants in the survey had bought hardware wallets.
Regarding the choice of wallets, the results show that hardware wallets are the most widely used
type of wallet for managing private keys that corresponds to the most spendable bitcoin. The
reason is that a hardware wallet can be seen as the wallet that has the best ratio between security,
functionality [24] and availability in the market. A large portion of the respondents also uses
software wallets, and a possible reason can be that they are often free to use where there is a
large selection of different types which one can choose based on their preference. It is possible
that more respondents would prefer to use a hardware wallet but may not consider it due to
their costs. Many day-traders and non-technical users may use such platforms as hosted web
wallets. Since many hosted web wallets act as a cryptocurrency exchange, they are more similar
to the banking systems, which enable easier trading and a more familiar interaction. Those
factors could be why web wallets are often used despite users not owning their private keys.
The low percentage of paper wallets could be because of the low availability and knowledge for
creating one correctly. A paper wallet is prone to be easily destroyed since it is made of paper.
Results show that the majority of Bitcoin users make backups of their keys, which is seen as
both positive and troublesome since it can make the recreation of keys possible. The issue was
further explored regarding backup practices. The results suggest that backing up to something
physically writable is the most popular method. The probable reason for this is that this type of
backup can be cheap to do in the form of paper and pen. The results suggest that the participants
are aware that losing the private key means losing spendable bitcoin. The result of this survey
suggests that Bitcoin users back up their private keys to a higher degree than with which general
users tend to back up data, as exemplified by [25] and [26]. A possible explanation can be that
the community of active Bitcoin users make up only a few percent of all computer users [27, 28].
17
It can be assumed that users possessing bitcoin are more prone to safeguard their possession
than other users in safeguarding regular data. A possible problem that the survey suggests is
the usage of many different types of backups since a specific backup can become a weak link. It
can also be problematic since one could forget that a weaker backup was made where a security
breach could happen.
As for encryption of backed up private keys, encryption of backups is only used by about 40%
of the respondents. However, encrypting paper-based backups can be cumbersome, and most
respondents who stated to use paper write their private keys or seed phrases directly in plain
text where they then hide the backup from access. Encryption can be seen as more relevant
for hard drives, but above all, email and cloud services as the backups are stored with a third
party. Something that may have made the question unclear is whether encryption can occur on
a written paper or piece of metal.
Multi-signature, which can reduce the likelihood of theft and loss rather than the availability,
was used by 34.5% of the respondents. The percentage is far less than the almost 90% who use
some form of backup. The results suggest that Bitcoin users primary concern is to ensure that
they can spend their bitcoin and not hassle with many private keys for signing transactions.
The lower usage of multi-signature could also be possible due to its technical difficulty and that
not all wallets use this technology. Multi-signature also contributes to lower availability since
all key pairs for the set relation needs to be accessible [9].
The paper’s limitation is that the survey may have missed a large sample of users who are
not actively searching and reading about Bitcoin. The reason for this is that the survey was
published on a forum for Bitcoin users. People who apply to forums tend to be interested in
the topic and spend time gathering information and discussing it. In addition, the posts in
the forum could have affected users’ choice of wallets and backup methods. Furthermore, the
study does not cover if users backup a nondeterministic or deterministic wallet. A deterministic
wallet only requires one backup. In contrast, a nondeterministic wallet can contain several
random private keys resulting in a more demanding backup [4]. Another issue that would have
provided more information is whether users use a passphrase for an extra layer of security.
7. Conclusions and future work
This paper aimed to investigate how Bitcoin users managed their private keys and illustrate
users social-technical interactions with Bitcoin wallets and backups of private keys. The results
from the survey of 339 Bitcoin users show that users make security-conscious choices by using
hardware wallets and backup. The results also show that 34.5% of the respondents use multi-
signature technology. An influential factor that can affect the choice of wallet is the amount of
bitcoin that the user owns. Hardware wallets and advanced solutions such as a multi-signature
are arguably used for users possessing a large amount of bitcoin. One interesting result showed
that more than half of respondents make a backup of their keys on a piece of paper, and about
half of those who make backups of their keys do not encrypt their backed up keys. Our research
calls for more research on ways in which private keys could be secured.
This research concludes that Bitcoin users are security-aware when it comes to the manage-
ment of their private keys. This is in contrast to research into security behaviour in general
18
which suggests that users often select not to use security features and functions voluntarily [29].
While the survey data does not allow for an investigation of the reason for this discrepancy,
we offer three possible explanations. First, it is possible that this sample, by accident, contains
users that are more prone to secure behaviour than the average user. However, a more likely
explanation could be that Bitcoin users are prone to secure behaviour than the average computer
user. While researching the demographic aspects of the users in the Bitcoin ecosystem is made
hard by the anonymous nature of it, some research suggests that computer professionals and
criminals make a large part of the user base [30]. Those users can perhaps be assumed to be
more cautious than the average computer user. A third explanation could be that Bitcoin users
are careful about their wallets since they hold a monetary value, and therefore ready to make
efforts to keep it secure. The last explanation would suggest that users are ready to put effort
into security in cases where security is perceived as important.
For future work, there are many opportunities to pursue. Cryptocurrencies are reasonably
young digital assets that will most likely evolve and gain more significant usage. Similar surveys
can be conducted in the form of a correlational study of the security choices and the features of
the wallets and security features and wallet adoption. Additional research regarding the use of
passphrases can also be explored. Further research can be done where a comparison between
different cryptocurrency wallets can take place.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the developers of ACM consolidated LaTeX styles https://github.com/borisveytsman/
acmart and to the developers of Elsevier updated LATEX templates https://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/
macros/latex/contrib/els-cas-templates.
References
[1] S. Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system, 2008. URL: https://bitcoin.
org/bitcoin.pdf.
[2] Blockchain.com, Wallets, 2020. URL: https://www.blockchain.com/charts/
my-wallet-n-users.
[3] M. Conti, E. S. Kumar, C. Lal, S. Ruj, A survey on security and privacy issues of bitcoin,
IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 20 (2018) 3416–3452. doi:1 0 . 1 1 0 9 / C O M S T . 2 0 1 8 .
2842460.
[4] A. M. Antonopoulos, Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the open blockchain, ” O’Reilly
Media, Inc.”, 2017.
[5] G. Baxter, I. Sommerville, Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems
engineering, Interacting with Computers 23 (2011) 4–17. doi:1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . i n t c o m . 2 0 1 0 . 0 7 .
003.
[6] S. Eskandari, J. Clark, D. Barrera, E. Stobert, A first look at the usability of bitcoin key
management, 2015. doi:1 0 . 1 4 7 2 2 / u s e c . 2 0 1 5 . 2 3 0 1 5 .
[7] A. Alshamsi, P. Andras, User perception of bitcoin usability and security across novice
19
users, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 126 (2019) 94–110. doi:1 0 . 1 0 1 6 /
j.ijhcs.2019.02.004.
[8] C. Tarimo, J. Bakari, L. Yngström, S. Kowalski, A social-technical view of ict security
issues, trends, and challenges: Towards a culture of ict security � the case of tanzania.,
2006, pp. 1–12.
[9] Y. Liu, R. Li, X. Liu, J. Wang, L. Zhang, C. Tang, H. Kang, An efficient method to enhance bit-
coin wallet security, in: 2017 11th IEEE International Conference on Anti-counterfeiting, Se-
curity, and Identification (ASID), IEEE, 2017, pp. 26–29. doi:1 0 . 1 1 0 9 / I C A S I D . 2 0 1 7 . 8 2 8 5 7 3 7 .
[10] A. Whitten, J. D. Tygar, Why johnny can’t encrypt: A usability evaluation of pgp 5.0., in:
USENIX Security Symposium, volume 348, 1999, pp. 169–184.
[11] G. Hileman, M. Rauchs, 2017 global cryptocurrency benchmarking study, Available at
SSRN 2965436 (2017). doi:1 0 . 2 1 3 9 / s s r n . 2 9 6 5 4 3 6 .
[12] H. Rezaeighaleh, C. C. Zou, New secure approach to backup cryptocurrency wallets,
in: 2019 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6.
doi:1 0 . 1 1 0 9 / G L O B E C O M 3 8 4 3 7 . 2 0 1 9 . 9 0 1 4 0 0 7 .
[13] A. R. Sai, J. Buckley, A. Le Gear, Privacy and security analysis of cryptocurrency mobile
applications, in: 2019 Fifth Conference on Mobile and Secure Services (MobiSecServ),
IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6. doi:1 0 . 1 1 0 9 / M O B I S E C S E R V . 2 0 1 9 . 8 6 8 6 5 8 3 .
[14] C. Y. Kim, K. Lee, Risk management to cryptocurrency exchange and investors guidelines
to prevent potential threats, in: 2018 International Conference on Platform Technology
and Service (PlatCon), IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–6. doi:1 0 . 1 1 0 9 / P l a t C o n . 2 0 1 8 . 8 4 7 2 7 6 0 .
[15] A. Gkaniatsou, M. Arapinis, A. Kiayias, Low-level attacks in bitcoin wallets, in: Inter-
national Conference on Information Security, Springer, 2017, pp. 233–253. doi:1 0 . 1 0 0 7 /
978- 3- 319- 69659- 1_13.
[16] P. K. Kaushal, A. Bagga, R. Sobti, Evolution of bitcoin and security risk in bitcoin wallets, in:
2017 International Conference on Computer, Communications and Electronics (Comptelix),
IEEE, 2017, pp. 172–177. doi:1 0 . 1 1 0 9 / C O M P T E L I X . 2 0 1 7 . 8 0 0 3 9 5 9 .
[17] A. Hayes, The socio-technological lives of bitcoin, Theory, Culture Society 36 (2019) 1–16.
doi:1 0 . 1 1 7 7 / 0 2 6 3 2 7 6 4 1 9 8 2 6 2 1 8 .
[18] A. G. Khan, A. H. Zahid, M. Hussain, U. Riaz, Security of cryptocurrency using hardware
wallet and qr code, in: 2019 International Conference on Innovative Computing (ICIC),
IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–10. doi:1 0 . 1 1 0 9 / I C I C 4 8 4 9 6 . 2 0 1 9 . 8 9 6 6 7 3 9 .
[19] S. He, Q. Wu, X. Luo, Z. Liang, D. Li, H. Feng, H. Zheng, Y. Li, A social-network-based
cryptocurrency wallet-management scheme, IEEE Access 6 (2018) 7654–7663. doi:1 0 . 1 1 0 9 /
ACCESS.2018.2799385.
[20] bitcoin.org, Bitcoin - open source p2p money., 2021. URL: bitcoin.org.
[21] F. J. Fowler Jr, Survey research methods, Sage publications, 2013.
[22] H. T. Reynolds, Analysis of nominal data, 4-7, Sage, 1984.
[23] C. Wheelan, Naked statistics: Stripping the dread from the data, WW Norton & Company,
2013.
[24] M. Gentilal, P. Martins, L. Sousa, Trustzone-backed bitcoin wallet, in: Proceedings of the
Fourth Workshop on Cryptography and Security in Computing Systems, 2017, pp. 25–28.
doi:1 0 . 1 1 4 5 / 3 0 3 1 8 3 6 . 3 0 3 1 8 4 1 .
[25] E. M. Redmiles, E. Hargittai, New phone, who dis? modeling millennials’ backup behavior,
20
ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) 13 (2018) 1–14. doi:1 0 . 1 1 4 5 / 3 2 0 8 1 0 5 .
[26] F. Breitinger, R. Tully-Doyle, C. Hassenfeldt, A survey on smartphone user’s security
choices, awareness and education, Computers & Security 88 (2020) 101647. doi:1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j .
cose.2019.101647.
[27] C. S. Henry, K. P. Huynh, G. Nicholls, Bitcoin awareness and usage in canada, Journal of
Digital Banking 2 (2018) 311–337.
[28] C. Tsanidis, D.-M. Nerantzaki, G. Karavasilis, V. Vrana, D. Paschaloudis, Greek consumers
and the use of bitcoin, The Business & Management Review 6 (2015) 295.
[29] M. Lennartsson, J. Kävrestad, M. Nohlberg, Exploring the meaning of usable security–a
literature review, Information & Computer Security (2021).
[30] A. Yelowitz, M. Wilson, Characteristics of bitcoin users: an analysis of google search data,
Applied Economics Letters 22 (2015) 1030–1036.
21