I understand that this was flagged because there have been many, many articles on the connection between ransomware and bitcoin.<p>However this article is not duplicative. It adds the history of exactly how Viagra spammers got shut down, from the perspective of one of the researchers who did it. And the technique by which that happened is a technique that can shut down bitcoin as well.<p>It is one thing to say, "We have to get rid of cryptocurrency! We're serious!" It is quite another to say, "Here is the method by which a similar past problem was solved." And lay out something that could actually kill the utility of cryptocurrency today. Namely shut down all bank accounts that are willing to exchange large amounts of cash for cryptocurrency. Just as we shut down all bank accounts that were receiving affiliate payments for Viagra spam.<p>So yes, it is possible to do this. We know how to do this. The question is whether the dangers of ransomware are such that we should do this. Cryptocurrencies have legitimate uses. For example they enable a variety of kinds of smart contracts, which NFTs are but one example of.<p>However ransomware is a big and growing problem. What happens when a ransomware attack gone bad winds up killing patients in a hospital? Crashes airplanes? Cuts off people's ability to access credit cards or banks?<p>If we keep seeing random services in a complex world get shut down by ransomware, it is just a question of time until the wrong service gets shut down with disastrous consequences. So far we have had minor inconveniences. But how will people feel after something bigger goes wrong?
I'd like to hear how cryptocurrency advocates address this without deploying a fallacy. Cryptocurrency makes ransomware possible, without the former, the latter cannot thrive. The defenses I usually hear come in the form of "current banking facilitates bad stuff, too," which is a fact, but doesn't absolve cryptocurrencies central role in ransomware. As the article states, there is simply no way to pay a ransom without cryptocurrency. Maybe they could do b2b or cash, but that would be sooooo bold (but not impossible?)<p>EDIT: See link from user 'px43' below about the history of ransomware. Good read. Predates cryptocurrency, but I think banking technology would make most payment strategies of the past impossible, like the original article argues (e.g., PO Box in Panama is quoted as a 1989 payment plan, but GP article explains that is harder due to extradition of data and logs).
"This means that cryptocurrencies are the only tool left for ransomware purveyors. So, if governments take meaningful action against Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, they should be able to disrupt this new ransomware plague and then eradicate it, as was seen with the spam Viagra industry."<p>This is the totally incorrect approach. Imagine banning Polaroids because they led to an explosive growth in underage pornography.<p>These exploits are happening not because of crypto but because of insecure systems that public, money making companies haven't invested in making secure.
I believe the benefits of cryptocurrency outweigh problems.<p>I <i>like</i> having options that can be anonymous, don't require banks, immune to government influence, and even completely outside any law. Because laws are not always moral and <i>should</i> be ignored and evaded.<p>That's freedom. Having it is worth the significant amount of problems that come along with it.
Ransomware is a <i>gift</i> — people are exposing insecure systems only for a few million dollars of payout. A more nefarious actor would do more nefarious things than just collect what is at the nation-state scale a very small amount of money. More ransomware will accelerate security improvements and protect systems from CCP, Five Eyes, etc.
Indeed, it is rather simple, all the founders and idealists of btc have been something like technology supremacist and do not want any government interventions infringing on their business matters.
They need to pretend how this is legal and a technology achievement to obfuscate the real purpose.
These are, founders getting rich, money laundering(called anonymous transactions), exchange of illegal goods( how many people pay with btc for legal things and how many use it to pay for all kinds of illegal things on the dark web?) .
Someone intelligent enough to create Bitcoin is intelligent enough to know this will be used for illicit purposes.
No way in hell did a borderline anarchist cypherpunk believe the general population will trust his system more than the banking system.
If most governments simply outlaw it, the price will have a rapid trajectory towards zero.
Bitcoin and the ecosystem are the only logic tool for ransomware transactions, there is no sugarcoating this.
Never understood why ransomware didn’t use more anonymous crypto currencies like Monero or ZCash.<p>Doesn’t that better protect the scammers from law enforcement?
Bitcoin/cryptocurrency are an amazing technology breakthrough, and they will be the future, companies and govs will not accept anything less than self auditable immutable transactions. Resistance is futile<p>Regarding ransomeware, there is already criminal/scam wallet addresses tracking, so anyone cashing out from these addresses will eventually have to explain it<p>If it wasn't for payment it would be to destroy competition or disrupt enemy country infrastructure<p>Hard cash has also been paying criminals since ever and we still use it. If anything Bitcoin is a step up, due to being more traceable
I think that what you're seeing is HNers, and techies in general not really understanding that there is a world that exists well outside of their bubble of technology.<p>Bitcoin did not create the concept of ransom. It didn't even create the concept of ransom as a business model for organized crime.<p>See for instance our neighbor to the south: <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/5/11/17276638/mexico-kidnappings-crime-cartels-drug-trade" rel="nofollow">https://www.vox.com/2018/5/11/17276638/mexico-kidnappings-cr...</a><p>This is such a common thing, that it has been the central plot of several hollywood movies.<p>There are even insurance policies that you can get for it: <a href="https://www.mexipass.com/mexico-commercial-insurance/specialty-insurance/kidnap-extorsion-insurance" rel="nofollow">https://www.mexipass.com/mexico-commercial-insurance/special...</a><p>This is also common in the shipping industry: <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/somalia-piracy/somali-pirates-say-release-syria-ship-after-ransom-idUSLDE74O1JS20110526" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/article/somalia-piracy/somali-pirate...</a><p>And <i>that</i> type of ransoming has had hollywood movies made about it.<p>And again <i>that</i> type of ransoming is common enough to have its own insurance: <a href="https://www.marineinsight.com/marine-piracy-marine/marine-insurance-for-piracy-attacks-necessities-and-benefits/" rel="nofollow">https://www.marineinsight.com/marine-piracy-marine/marine-in...</a><p>Should we ban shipping? Or ban the internet?<p>Probably not.