Hacker News Reader

Comment by sowbug | Hacker News Reader

In 2020, ransomware was $29 million of $4.3 billion in online scams. Digital currencies were involved in $246 million of that $4.3 billion. The rest was wire transfers, gift cards, checks, ACH, and cash. Perhaps we should ban those, too.

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...

View on HN

2020 is ancient and the second link doesn't look impartial. Denying cryptocurrency facilitate criminal activities is as like denying the sky is blue.

So does cash, gift cards etc. Should we ban everything? You can use regular banking for big operations as well. Should we ban that too then? But then nothing is left :)

Try going to your bank (even as a business with a lot of liquid assets or even cash on hand) and tell them you want to send 22 million dollars to an account.

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.

I agree that gift cards are also overrepresented in frauds, bring little value to society and should be banned.

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.

Well, the whole idea is that crypto is digital cash, and that we should strive to keep the state where positives outweigh negatives. Attempt to, at least

Feel free to provide more recent and impartial data.

The onus is not on me here. I was only pointing out this is old data and the date is all I needed.

Barely 4 years old is not particularly old.

There is a newer report: https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2023_IC3Report.pd.... Figures are based on the FBI's tally of $12.5 billion in 2023 online scams.

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.

I would interpret the data as agreeing, not denying, that digital currencies are used in crime. I don't believe that was being debated.

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.

> ransomware existed at least since the 1980s

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.

Apple II floppies in the 1980s that contained a bad version of DOS 3.3, circulated on BBSes. I was never personally affected, but I heard (at the time, not after the fact) that the point was to drive traffic to a certain pirate BBS that charged for membership. I don't know how such memberships were paid for, but I do remember that Sprint long-distance codes were being traded at the time, so it would make sense to use that method. I also saw a Mac virus that encrypted word-processing files. This was in either late 1980s or early 1990s (I wasn't sure in my earlier post, so I erred on the side of recency). That was the one that promised recovery by postal mail. I don't know anything about the "AIDS Trojan" that you mention.

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.

Specifically, if the money is just as gone if the instructions are "wire 22 million to this Russian bank address" instead of "wire 22 million to this Bitcoin address".

The bitcoin option is far easier to implement for most of us (and there are more anonymous cryptos).

...did you just admit to being a ransomware author? My impression is that ransomware is run by organized crime with ties to Russia, and isn't the work of a small team, but, well, I don't know much about running a criminal ransomware organization. If you do, I'd love to hear more!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com