CustodyStress
Archive › Physical coercion
Part of the CustodyStress archive of observed Bitcoin custody incidents
CS-01226

Physical coercion — hardware wallet (2024)

Blocked
Case description
A July 2024 review of documented physical cryptocurrency attacks by CryptoSlate noted that the pattern of attacks in 2024 was shifting from opportunistic street crime toward pre-planned, intelligence-led operations targeting identified high-value holders. Attackers were increasingly using on-chain analytics, social media posts, and property records to identify targets before executing attacks. Jameson Lopp advised Bitcoin owners to maintain strict operational security: avoid disclosing holdings publicly, avoid high-value face-to-face trades, and use multi-signature custody arrangements where access could not be extracted by coercing a single person.
Custody context
Stress conditionPhysical coercion
Custody systemHardware wallet (single key)
OutcomeBlocked
DocumentationUnknown
Year observed2024
CountryInternational
Structural dependencies observed
Biometric or physical presence
What this illustrates
Access required in-person verification that couldn't be arranged under the circumstances. Access was not recoverable.
Outcome interpretation
Access was not possible under the reported conditions.
Source
Publicly Reported
Evidence type
News article
Related cases involving physical coercion
105 cases involve physical coercion 274 cases involve hardware wallet (single key) View archive statistics →
This archive documents observed custody survivability failures. It does not attempt to document all Bitcoin losses or security incidents. Submit a case
← All cases
Framework references
Terms guide
Survives
Access remained possible under the reported conditions.
Constrained
Access remained possible, but only with delay, dependence, or significant difficulty.
Blocked
Access was not possible under the reported conditions.
Indeterminate
There was not enough information to determine the outcome.
Single-person knowledge
Recovery depended on information or capability held by one individual who was unavailable.
Institutional dependence
Recovery depended on a third-party institution or service that was inaccessible or uncooperative.
Documentation gap
Recovery depended on instructions that were missing, incomplete, or unclear.
Authority mismatch
The person with legal authority to act did not have operational access, or vice versa.
Original text
Rate this translation
Your feedback will be used to help improve Google Translate