> Just wanted to make this same point - right now, cryptocurrency has negative value for society. Perhaps this is a justification for banning the current implementations.
Ehhhh, I think the overall impact of Bitcoin is negative, but the "democratizing large-scale crime" argument is a pretty poor argument for why that is. First, Bitcoin isn't "democratizing" anything good or bad--people need to stop using this word with regard to Bitcoin. But assuming you mean something along the lines of "enabling", or "empowering", I'm not sure that the shift in computer hacking crime which is caused by Bitcoin is actually negative.
Prior to Bitcoin, the people who paid for poor security were consumers whose data, money, and time were stolen. In theory if an entity exposes your data, you can sue them, but in reality, data breaches are common and when entities actually get sued, they rarely pay out significantly. I've followed the Equifax case every step of the way for years and still haven't received a dime, and I doubt many people would follow through all the hoops they've put in place--I'm mostly doing it out of curiosity at this point.
That still happens, but more and more, ransomware's biggest targets are large entities which should have secured their services better. Not only does ransomware punish the entities who should have prioritized security, not the consumers, it also makes it public knowledge whose security is lax.
Now there are a lot of complexities here. In theory, ransomeware hackers could also sell the data--but as far as I know that doesn't happen much, probably because they rely on the "honest crook" effect to ever get paid. And sometimes ransomware is employed against individuals.
And to be clear, I'm not endorsing ransomeware attacks. I'm just saying this looks like harm reduction to me: if a big business is going to not prioritize security and get hacked, then I'd rather they pay a ransom than have user's private data sold on the darkweb. In a more just system, that's just the fines they'd be paying anyway.