Sorry, but the question was quite disrespectful. We are presenting a high-security solution to an important problem and the ignorant observer proposes to use so

Sorry, but the question was quite disrespectful. We are presenting a high-security solution to an important problem and the ignorant observer proposes to use something extremely unsafe and insecure as an alternative without even trying to understand the problem. Here's the motivation, right on the first page: "This can be viewed as an ultimate solution for secure storage of bitcoins as no individual computer system can be fully trusted (e.g. even RNG may leak information about private keys through ECDSA signatures [5]). By spreading the trust between several independently operating computers the risk is significantly reduced. The attacker not only has to compromise several computers instead of just one, but beforehand they must find out which computers are involved (which is made much harder when blind signatures are being exchanged). Therefore the scheme enables safer Bitcoin storage on conventional personal computers and smartphones without need for specialized hardware or compromising privacy." To my excuse, I only allowed myself to be a bit arrogant while providing a respectful answer anyway. This both answers the question and signals that something can be improved in the discussion.