Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by kasperni | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

kasperni

Ransomware: Another great "feature" of difficult to trace digital currencies.

View on HN

Ransomware: another great feature of cryptography.

The crypto-revolution and its consequences were a disaster for the human race...

What specifically do you mean by the crypto-revolution?

It's a reference to the Unabomber's Manifesto

Christ..

I have always understood that all payments were traceable with digital currencies. Am I wrong?

Not all cryptocurrencies but it's true for something like Bitcoin. The problem is you can trace the transaction to the attackers wallet, but where does it go from there? It might sit there, they might throw the money in a tumbler, maybe they sell it for cash... If or when it shows up in a KYC-compliant exchange it could have changed hands many times already and it might not be possible to say anything about the actual criminal at that point.

So it's up to the individual to make sure they're not accepting dirty money. Shouldn't be hard to write software to accomplish that. The exchanges can do it --- flag incoming dirty money. Average users don't accept btc from strangers as a payment for goods or services anyway.

Yes, but for example when you use a tumbler (mixer) the whole idea is to receive random coins back. Also you can not rely on everyone to know and care about this. And not all dirty money is publicly known anyway. So there will always be ways to get rid of dirty BTC.

The non-fungibility of bitcoins can be seen as an advantage or one of its largest flaws, depending on how you look at it. Either way it's the reason quite a few people have switched to Monero and other completely fungible coins.

>Shouldn't be hard to write software to accomplish that

There are startups offering exactly this as a service already.

apparently the traceability of digital currencies is proving effective in tracking down criminals that might otherwise operate in just cash.

Cryptocurrencies are what allows criminals to scale these attacks. They also significantly decrease the risk of getting caught, compared to accepting cash in a briefcase.

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.

im saying the traceability/digitalization is a double-edged sword.

So, did they get the people that r'wared the US pipeline then?

Infosec Twitter this morning seems to imply that perhaps they did.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/REvil?src=hashtag_click&f=live

caveat that this world is full of rampant speculation and lies so take it with a grain of salt. ;-)

If they haven't yet, give it a little time. Fucking with US oil supplies is a really good way to get the opportunity to feel the full engine of US intelligence and military might.

Ransomware: Another great "feature" of computers.

Said the medieval King:

Ransom: Another great "feature" of difficult-to-trace personal gold coinage

What you're actually saying is:

Bad thing: Another great "feature" of any kind of positive development in personal sovereignty

Bad thing: Another great "feature" of any kind of progress

---

Progress comes with pitfalls. Sharp knives prepare food and also kill people.

You argument effectively reduces to: never innovate.

Your argument reduces to: "progress" is always good, even if it's bad.

I think we're perfectly allowed to discuss whether we think a particular kind of change is a good or bad thing.

I'm not making an argument "for progress" at all. I actually 100% agree that we are allowed to, and should, discuss the ramifications of any kind of change.

My point is only that the original comment didn't attempt make any argument, other than the reduced one I outlined.

But they did. They said that digital currencies are difficult to trace and lead to an increase in ransomware. The closest thing to a response you made was "Progress comes with pitfalls".

That's not really a reduction... more of a random association to a generality you feel strongly about.

You "reduced" difficult to trace digital currencies to "any kind of positive development in personal sovereignty."

No need to keep defending a mistake. Just reread your own comment and the OP's. Respond to the comment itself, not other discussions you've had on the topic. If you think the argument implies something you disagree with, make the connection. Don't just assert that the argument reduces to this. Besides being mistake prone, it's unfriendly and unproductive.

I've made plenty of comments myself that I don't/shouldn't stand behind, in short retrospect. I suspect this is one of yours. Minor foul. Happens. Shake hands and make good.

I genuinely appreciate your comment and the direction it provides - it's rare to see this when people disagree.

When re-reading the OP's comment just now, I just can't interpret it any other way other than "see! crypto bad". Maybe I'm missing something.

I'd accept that my responding, effectively in-kind ("see! your position bad"), isn't particularly useful other than potentially alerting them to the fact (my intention), and I'd no doubt do better to provide some examples of benefits at least (as I see the current top-voted reply did, that is otherwise identical to mine).

My admission of that however, does not indemnify the original commenter - at least, in terms of my interpretation of their comment, which is really all I can be responsible for.

Cheers mate.

The original comment linked ransomware to crypto, which isn't too controversial. There are good things about crypto, which may outweigh that... certainly discussable.

Personally, I don't see either point as representing the most substantial positive or negative of crypto... so I don't really have a dog in this one.

No need do indemnify or vilify anyone. It's perfectly ok to hold any of these views. It's also fine to make an unconvincing argument... it just may not be convincing.

> You argument effectively reduces to: never innovate.

You chose to reduce it to that. There is no need to reduce every argument to its black and white extreme, although that is the easiest interpretation.

Bitcoin in particular requires truly ridiculous amounts of compute and has made hacking a far more profitable enterprise than before.

There are already digital currencies tackling the first problem, the 2nd could potentially also be solved.

So a more charitable interpretation might be, more innovation is needed to get digital currencies right.

What does your argument reduce to, assuming someone who disagrees does the reducing?

This was done before crypto currencies.

But it only became a serious problem because of them.

Ransomware: Another great "feature" of non-backdoored encryption.

See how silly you sound?

This is what-about-ism. There are valid reasons for strong encryption, e.g. protecting the very data that has been compromised here.

It is not a whataboutism; it's a reductio ad absurdum.

that's malware, not new.

the ransom part, at the scale possible with cryptocurrency, is new.

those who sound "silly" are the ones elaborately pretending that this formerly obscure class of electronic extortion didn't suddenly explode into an epidemic with the concomitant rise of cryptocurrency.

true, though arguably it's a good thing. In the sense that it moves more of the costs of malware to the organisations that are meant to be securing the data. Previously, these costs were more borne by customers/clients/etc, and thus not taken as seriously - abstract costs and externalities.

Putting a clear number of the cost of poor cybersecurity should push more organisations to actually do something about it.

no. mugging is not "good" because it incentivizes people to take karate classes.

what an inhumane and cynical take.

Theft was happening anyway via malware, it's just fewer of the costs were being borne directly. And as data collection increases, those indirect costs are getting higher.

Now the organisation has more at to lose at first pass, rather than just data subjects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com