[flagged]
Blockchain analysis shows less than 1% of transactions are considered illicit.
Unless this data is wrong or misleading, then it stands to reason the approach you suggest won't make a difference.
https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2020_IC3Report.pd...
https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/2024-crypto-crime-report-in...
Try going out and buying, then sending $22 million dollars worth of gift cards.
Crypto clearly makes the whole process far quicker and more anonymous.
Surely we can all agree that the benefit that cash bring still outweigh the wrongful use. When it's no longer the case I imagine it will be phased out too.
The open question is whether legitimate uses of digital currencies outweigh their illegitimate uses. The supplied data, which you're welcome to rebut, strongly suggests they do.
More to the point, the data suggests that GP's simple solution to stopping ransomware crime -- banning an entire class of media of exchange -- won't be effective. Not only has ransomware existed at least since the 1980s, well before the 2009 introduction of Bitcoin, but it isn't even dependent on digital currencies. (My personal and anecdotal intersection with it shows 0% usage; one in the 1990s demanded a mailed money order, and the other in 2023 provided a phone number to call and read gift-card scratch-off codes.)
Banning money doesn't stop crime.
Did you just go to Wikipedia article for Ransomware, saw 1989 AIDS Trojan being mentioned and now claim that ransomware existed since 1980? AIDS Trojan didn't really work and didn't provide any kind of anonymity for its creator. It was created by a mentally ill person. There were no instances of successful ransomware before Bitcoin. It really started with CryptoLocker. CryptoLocker gave victim an option to pay with either cash card or bitcoin. Cash cards were converted to bitcoin, which was outsourced to third party low-level criminals who took the risk of being caught. So bitcoin was absolutely critical piece here. And it was true for all successful ransomware schemes since. I stand behind my claim that ransomware wouldn't be possible without crypto. It's especially true about extortion attacks against corporations, like what article talks about.
It seems very important to you that you successfully draw a bright line between digital-currency-funded ransomware and the other ransomware that preceded it. You might strengthen your argument by taking a position closer to reality, which is that digital currencies have facilitated online transfers of value, and thus have become more popular. From that point of view, one would hope that digital currencies would come to dominate, including in the realm of ransomware. But again, that gets us back to the original topic: whether the beneficial uses of such currencies outweigh their negative uses.
Ransomware has declined (0.674% in 2020, 0.4768% in 2023): $59.6 million. Digital currency usage has increased (5.7% in 2020, 30.4% in 2023): $3.8 billion.
Which means we're still in agreement.
Some ideas are so inane they should not rise to the top of a forum for technologists and software engineers, yet somehow here we are.
The fees are more expensive than banks and credit cards.
Its value is extremely volatile, so legitimate businesses immediately convert to cash if they accept it.
It's not anonymous like cash. Funds are actually easily traceable. So it is pretty much a guarantee that any scam involving bit coin crosses an international border with the blessing of the state.
Mining is a massive waste of energy at this point and if it continues will likely become a major contributing factor to climate change.
I would say bit coin was a nice idea, but currently is a failure in every way except to the people who got in early and to scammers.
Maybe a future crypto could solve some or all of these problems so I'm not in favor of banning the idea, but there's a legitimate argument to be made for banning bit coin. But the people who made a bunch of money from it will fight it extremely hard.
It’d help if more people asked themselves a question more often:
“Am I being a useful idiot right now?”
Or they could be usefully malicious, hard to say.
One should try to avoid black-and-white thinking. Unless they are collecting likes on social media.
I think porn is a terrible drug, yet prohibition is even worse. Same for real drugs. Same for crypto. Where have the Californian techno-utopian disappeared to, that all we are left with are the left-leaning socialist posers paid by Big Tech but hating a whole technological niche?
I like Bitcoin because it is the realisation of the crypto-anarchist dream. A digital thorn in the side of the State. At least us anarchist posers still take personal freedom seriously.
It's almost like the "think of the children" kids grew up at we are at "think of the adults" now.
What is this "cryptomunitions" you're talking about from the 90s...?
I suppose the highest leverage card that legislators could play to try to hurt cryptocurrency would be to put a stranglehold on the fiat currency on/off ramps (eg making businesses like coin base flat out illegal), but even after doing that peer to peer markets would survive (albeit likely after also taking some damage to user base, maybe).
It'd also put a dent in crypto as a perennial pump-and-dump investment scheme, which in the long run would probably be quite good for its ability to actually work for daily, legitimate use.
I don’t know if English is your first language or not. The use of the word “decent” here seems inappropriate and totally lacking justification or nuance.
People have killed other people with forks. Do what that info what you will, but do apply it to your analogy.
Also let's not pretend the receiving side is innocent; choosing to receive money in crypto is already a huge red flag.
I understand that this could lead to business bankruptcies, job losses, and severe impacts on customers. That is acceptable collateral damage to prevent additional funds from reaching organized crime and terrorist groups.
No thanks.