Want to Stop Ransomware Attacks? Ban Bitcoin and Other Cryptocurrencies | Hacker News Reader

Want to Stop Ransomware Attacks? Ban Bitcoin and Other Cryptocurrencies

newrepublic.com

30 pointsmgh213 comments

>the dollar, which is government-backed and sustains trillions in commerce every day. The dollar is imperfect, but it has widespread use, relative stability, and a robust, if insufficient, regulatory structure. Your bank account is even insured by the federal government

>Perhaps, one day, the promised decentralized financial system—one that’s supposed to be liberated from the surveilling eye of the state and the harsh yoke of tyrannical central banks—will arrive.

I'm not sure if he was being sarcastic in the second passage. Does he genuinely want less statism, or is he just mocking proponents of cryptocurrency?

He is being sarcastic.

>Here’s how these attacks work. A hacker penetrates a company’s systems—an often easy task, given many firms’ shoddy cybersecurity practices.

This seems like the real problem. "Banning cryptocurrencies", whatever that means, doesn't solve the security problem. If these critical systems are so vulnerable, shouldn't we be even more concerned about hackers who have more nefarious intentions than making some quick money?

Ransomware is a job for these people. They're not doing it for fun.

Would you take a job if you were paid in only iTunes vouchers? There would still be a few people, but not the vast and expanding industry that we have at the moment.

Vouchers (or bags of cash) are also much more difficult to convert to fiat without being tracked.

In terms of enforcement - preventing all bank transfers to and from exchanges, embargoes on countries that allow exchanges, threatening to seize crypto on sight, and fines for companies making payments in crypto would be enough to do 99% of the work.

Sure people could send payments off-exchange, but without the liquidity provided by retail investors criminals would struggle to cash out.

Blackmail existed before cryptocurrencies. Maybe it was somewhat riskier, but when you are holding the East Coast of the United States hostage what are the chances they grab your bagman and chance affecting millions of citizens? That risk in getting paid is a deterrent, but not much of one, especially if payment can be arranged to occur in a criminal friendly country.

Some state actors may not even care if they get paid and would be just as happy to see the infrastructure burn. Some people are crazy and would destroy things just to appease the voices in their head. The true problem is not cryptocurrencies, it is the poorly protected software and people who use the software. Major fundamental changes are needed, and they won't be cheap or quick so start now.

How about making the companies accountable for the atrocious security?

Somehow this is now a negative stance, but what other incentive is there to not just spend 0$ on security? Write crap software and get hacked, blame law enforcement for not getting the criminals.

I think the problem is security in the software industry is not compatible with the US' volume production style economy, so more spending will be on more low/no assurance software that matches more checkboxes, raises costs and further deteriorates security. Companies that minimize their attack surfaces will be the only ones that cease to qualify for insurance under most legislation that would appeal to the industry.

Victim blaming won't help here. Ransomware is generally a sophisticated attack by groups that tend to have the finances, skills, and resources to stay ahead of 80% of the companies operating today.

Bitcoin transactions are all public. The wallets might not be tied to identity, but eventually you have to sell a bitcoin to recover other currency. This is something most nations have a good amount of surveillance over. Bitcoin is in effect a honeypot.

This is an example of the political idea of "never let a crisis go to waste", using crisis to push agenda.

Everyone is stoked with more fear by the media, which wouldn't dare explore even comments about real solutions.

HaHa, Too much vice on the internet, lets ban that too. Too many kidnappings for cash, let's ban that too! /s

You joke, but bans on cash have been proposed for decades. Naturally with CBDC, the government could better control who could transact and for what purposes.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/021816/why-g...

https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/the-war-on-cash-us-expl...

https://internationalman.com/articles/the-war-on-cash-transp...

Want to stop automobile accidents? Ban personal automobiles.

Banning crypto will not stop ransom attacks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com