5 ms·

Regarding how awesome Bitcoin must be, can I just take a moment to point out that only half the reason crap like randomware exists (and hits places like hospita

Regarding how awesome Bitcoin must be, can I just take a moment to point out that only half the reason crap like randomware exists (and hits places like hospitals, etc.) is suboptimal security. The other half is untraceable digital payments. Food for thought.

kemonocode 9y ago
Bitcoin payments are anonymous, but they are perfectly traceable. Quite the important distinction there. Tainted money like that would need to be put through a Bitcoin tumbler which is unsafe and imperfect or only ever used to pay for other criminal activities as exchanging it for fiat in an exchange cooperating with any authorities could be pretty hard.
- wfunction 9y ago
  > Bitcoin payments are anonymous, but they are perfectly traceable. Quite the important distinction there. And I was merely saying Bitcoin has been making untraceable digital payments possible (and practical/easy). Nowhere was I saying it is impossible to also use Bitcoin for traceable digital payments.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    And you'd still be wrong. There's nothing about bitcoin that makes payments untraceable (quite the opposite). It takes longer, but it's possible.
    - wfunction 9y ago
      "It takes longer, but it's possible"? That's like saying decrypting RSA "takes longer, but it's possible". Yeah, good luck.
      - jpttsn 9y ago
        There used to be ransomware that demanded cash by mail. RSA analogy? Way too harsh.
        wfunction 9y ago
        That's good to know, I wasn't aware. But cash by mail... at what scale? How many people were attacked? And I don't see why the RSA analogy is "too harsh". Impractical is impractical.
        jpttsn 9y ago
        Floppy disk days, no big thing. But practical enough to work in the wild. RSA bruteforce is (I hope) impractical on a different level.
        abritinthebay 9y ago
        But tracing bitcoin is not impractical. It's been done.
      - yenda 9y ago
        Isn't the ledger public ? Isn't it easier to track for the authorities than cash serial numbers ?
        abritinthebay 9y ago
        It's easier in many ways but due to anonymity you have to cross trace more. But yes, it's WAY easier to trace than cash
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        It's more like saying "breaking sha1 is slower than md5". Like, it's more awkward but quite doable especially with decent resources.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
phil21 9y ago
Ransomware existed before Bitcoin, generally using something like Western Union. Bitcoin just became preferred is all. In no way did it "enable" ransomware to exist, it simply lowered the bar.
- wfunction 9y ago
  > Bitcoin just became preferred is all. In no way did it "enable" ransomware to exist, it simply lowered the bar Would love to know where the heck you pulled the quoted "enable" from, because it certainly wasn't from my post. And you say "it simply lowered the bar" as if that's somehow insignificant. Actually, it's the entire freaking point. There's orders of magnitude difference between the two. We're not proving undecidability here...
tlrobinson 9y ago
Perhaps the ease with which vulnerabilities can now be monetized will lead to them being found and fixed more quickly, vs being secretly used by more insidious attackers over time.
- wfunction 9y ago
  > Perhaps the ease with which vulnerabilities can now be monetized will lead to them being found and fixed more quickly, vs being secretly used by more insidious attackers over time. Yes, because we clearly need to fix software vulnerabilities at any and all costs, hospital patients and the poor/elderly be damned. And it's obviously their fault for paying for indirectly supporting the development of insecure software, right? Only an idiot would think tackling the payment side of ransomware might be a better solution. After all, ransomware must've obviously been a bigger problem before; there's no freakin' way our cryptocurrency like Bitcoin has made these problems worse or that it might be causing more problems than it's solving. Clearly the ability to make anonymous or untraceable payments is a human right more fundamental than being able to live a life free of others demanding such ransom from them in the first place.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Your point may be valid, but the tone undermines the post. Derisive sarcasm is only worthwhile if it's amusingly written.

kemonocode 9y ago

Bitcoin payments are anonymous, but they are perfectly traceable. Quite the important distinction there. Tainted money like that would need to be put through a Bitcoin tumbler which is unsafe and imperfect or only ever used to pay for other criminal activities as exchanging it for fiat in an exchange cooperating with any authorities could be pretty hard.

wfunction 9y ago
> Bitcoin payments are anonymous, but they are perfectly traceable. Quite the important distinction there. And I was merely saying Bitcoin has been making untraceable digital payments possible (and practical/easy). Nowhere was I saying it is impossible to also use Bitcoin for traceable digital payments.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  And you'd still be wrong. There's nothing about bitcoin that makes payments untraceable (quite the opposite). It takes longer, but it's possible.
  - wfunction 9y ago
    "It takes longer, but it's possible"? That's like saying decrypting RSA "takes longer, but it's possible". Yeah, good luck.
    - jpttsn 9y ago
      There used to be ransomware that demanded cash by mail. RSA analogy? Way too harsh.
      - wfunction 9y ago
        That's good to know, I wasn't aware. But cash by mail... at what scale? How many people were attacked? And I don't see why the RSA analogy is "too harsh". Impractical is impractical.
        jpttsn 9y ago
        Floppy disk days, no big thing. But practical enough to work in the wild. RSA bruteforce is (I hope) impractical on a different level.
        abritinthebay 9y ago
        But tracing bitcoin is not impractical. It's been done.
    - yenda 9y ago
      Isn't the ledger public ? Isn't it easier to track for the authorities than cash serial numbers ?
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        It's easier in many ways but due to anonymity you have to cross trace more. But yes, it's WAY easier to trace than cash
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      It's more like saying "breaking sha1 is slower than md5". Like, it's more awkward but quite doable especially with decent resources.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

phil21 9y ago

Ransomware existed before Bitcoin, generally using something like Western Union. Bitcoin just became preferred is all. In no way did it "enable" ransomware to exist, it simply lowered the bar.

wfunction 9y ago
> Bitcoin just became preferred is all. In no way did it "enable" ransomware to exist, it simply lowered the bar Would love to know where the heck you pulled the quoted "enable" from, because it certainly wasn't from my post. And you say "it simply lowered the bar" as if that's somehow insignificant. Actually, it's the entire freaking point. There's orders of magnitude difference between the two. We're not proving undecidability here...

tlrobinson 9y ago

Perhaps the ease with which vulnerabilities can now be monetized will lead to them being found and fixed more quickly, vs being secretly used by more insidious attackers over time.

wfunction 9y ago
> Perhaps the ease with which vulnerabilities can now be monetized will lead to them being found and fixed more quickly, vs being secretly used by more insidious attackers over time. Yes, because we clearly need to fix software vulnerabilities at any and all costs, hospital patients and the poor/elderly be damned. And it's obviously their fault for paying for indirectly supporting the development of insecure software, right? Only an idiot would think tackling the payment side of ransomware might be a better solution. After all, ransomware must've obviously been a bigger problem before; there's no freakin' way our cryptocurrency like Bitcoin has made these problems worse or that it might be causing more problems than it's solving. Clearly the ability to make anonymous or untraceable payments is a human right more fundamental than being able to live a life free of others demanding such ransom from them in the first place.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Your point may be valid, but the tone undermines the post. Derisive sarcasm is only worthwhile if it's amusingly written.