7 ms·

Why do you think this is the fault of cryptocurrency?

by an_ko 7y ago

arcticbull 7y ago
Ransomware doesn't really work without it. In fact, they specifically call out WannaCry which demands ransom in BTC.
- nyolfen 7y ago
  it doesn’t work without the internet or strong open source cryptography either
  - root_axis 7y ago
    Don't you see the obvious logical failure of that rebuttal?
    - nyolfen 7y ago
      is the failure "i don't see cryptographers as my ideological opponents"? ransomware existed before bitcoin; it used moneypak, western union and similar services as the payment vehicle.
  - magduf 7y ago
    It also doesn't work too well without Microsoft Windows.
    - nyolfen 7y ago
      you will be pleased to learn there are ransomware families that target macos and linux as well
      - magduf 7y ago
        Citation needed for the Linux one. People have been telling me for decades now that "there's viruses for Linux too!" but I've never seen any actual malware that actually affects desktop Linux. It's like the Yeti.
ceejayoz 7y ago
Ransomware relies on there being safe ways to collect the ransom. There were a few predecessors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGPCoder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGPCoder) using stuff like Liberty Reserve (long since shut down by the Feds), but Bitcoin made it pretty easy. One tried "mail money to a PO box" back in the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_(Trojan_horse) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_(Trojan_horse) The downsides of that approach for a criminal should be fairly obvious.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  Downside? Sounds like a great way to get anyone you want arrested by the FBI without them knowing who made this all happen.
cartoonworld 7y ago
One of the useful features of cryptocurrency is regulatory arbitrage. Without this ability, ransom payments in cash, or electronic bank transfers would drastically reduce the feasibility of receiving the ransom payment without also revealing the identity of the payee. A side effect of the anonymity is that crypto provides the opsec cover for these undesirable operations.
Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
He's a resident cryptocurrency hater, so he never misses the opportunity even though ransomware long predates cryptocurrency.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  I am :) but there's no doubt that cryptocurrency has made ransomware easier to write/execute, makes it harder to catch people responsible, and availability thereof has led to massive worldwide spike in ransomware. [1] Seriously, what options did you have to obtain the value before? A wire transfer? [1] https://phoenixnap.com/blog/ransomware-statistics-facts https://phoenixnap.com/blog/ransomware-statistics-facts
  - Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
    They used moneypak transfers, from what I remember. Personally, I would rather live in the world where we have financial privacy and financial freedom even if that means dealing with ransomware. (which is mitigable with proper planning). If a ransomware author doesn't have financial freedom or privacy then that means you don't either. Edward Snowden is being financially censored right now by US Government in a move to take away the proceeds of his book. It is no wonder then that Snowden is a fan of cryptocurrencies which have no such mechanism. Likewise, WikiLeaks was financially censored by PayPal, VISA and Mastercard under unofficial pressure from the US Gov. You don't even have to break any laws to be financially censored. PayPal regularly freezes people's balances for 180 days and does not even provide a reason. The sometimes do this at the behest of political activists looking to use financial pressure to censor their opponents. So, I will accept ransomware as an unavoidable consequence of the greater good - because if all of these people are censored then so am I.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      The only place it has any advantage is crime. The problem is a social one: we need to lobby the government to ensure folks like Snowden are protected, and not allow the tyranny of the minority through spending money in a way that can't be traced or censored. We can all agree sending money to North Korea is bad. [1] Funding ISIS is bad. [2] Ransomware is bad. [3] Wikileaks and Snowden? There's a debate to be had. You're actively circumventing democracy by preventing us from having that debate and by refusing to abide by democracy's decisions. You're attacking symptoms, not problems, with tools that are just broadly worse. Social problems need social solutions, not anarchy and magic beans that live in your computer. Of course that's harder, but it is better, and there's no "number go up" to compensate you. [1] https://bitcoinist.com/un-north-korea-accumulating-cryptocurrency-for-weapons-programs/ https://bitcoinist.com/un-north-korea-accumulating-cryptocur... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/18/technology/terrorists-bitcoin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/18/technology/terrorists-bit... [3] https://phoenixnap.com/blog/ransomware-statistics-facts https://phoenixnap.com/blog/ransomware-statistics-facts

Why do you think this is the fault of cryptocurrency?

by an_ko 7y ago

Why do you think this is the fault of cryptocurrency?

arcticbull 7y ago

Ransomware doesn't really work without it. In fact, they specifically call out WannaCry which demands ransom in BTC.

nyolfen 7y ago
it doesn’t work without the internet or strong open source cryptography either
- root_axis 7y ago
  Don't you see the obvious logical failure of that rebuttal?
  - nyolfen 7y ago
    is the failure "i don't see cryptographers as my ideological opponents"? ransomware existed before bitcoin; it used moneypak, western union and similar services as the payment vehicle.
- magduf 7y ago
  It also doesn't work too well without Microsoft Windows.
  - nyolfen 7y ago
    you will be pleased to learn there are ransomware families that target macos and linux as well
    - magduf 7y ago
      Citation needed for the Linux one. People have been telling me for decades now that "there's viruses for Linux too!" but I've never seen any actual malware that actually affects desktop Linux. It's like the Yeti.

ceejayoz 7y ago

Ransomware relies on there being safe ways to collect the ransom. There were a few predecessors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGPCoder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGPCoder) using stuff like Liberty Reserve (long since shut down by the Feds), but Bitcoin made it pretty easy. One tried "mail money to a PO box" back in the 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_(Trojan_horse) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_(Trojan_horse) The downsides of that approach for a criminal should be fairly obvious.

Scoundreller 7y ago
Downside? Sounds like a great way to get anyone you want arrested by the FBI without them knowing who made this all happen.

cartoonworld 7y ago

One of the useful features of cryptocurrency is regulatory arbitrage. Without this ability, ransom payments in cash, or electronic bank transfers would drastically reduce the feasibility of receiving the ransom payment without also revealing the identity of the payee. A side effect of the anonymity is that crypto provides the opsec cover for these undesirable operations.

Acrobatic_Road 7y ago

He's a resident cryptocurrency hater, so he never misses the opportunity even though ransomware long predates cryptocurrency.

arcticbull 7y ago
I am :) but there's no doubt that cryptocurrency has made ransomware easier to write/execute, makes it harder to catch people responsible, and availability thereof has led to massive worldwide spike in ransomware. [1] Seriously, what options did you have to obtain the value before? A wire transfer? [1] https://phoenixnap.com/blog/ransomware-statistics-facts https://phoenixnap.com/blog/ransomware-statistics-facts
- Acrobatic_Road 7y ago
  They used moneypak transfers, from what I remember. Personally, I would rather live in the world where we have financial privacy and financial freedom even if that means dealing with ransomware. (which is mitigable with proper planning). If a ransomware author doesn't have financial freedom or privacy then that means you don't either. Edward Snowden is being financially censored right now by US Government in a move to take away the proceeds of his book. It is no wonder then that Snowden is a fan of cryptocurrencies which have no such mechanism. Likewise, WikiLeaks was financially censored by PayPal, VISA and Mastercard under unofficial pressure from the US Gov. You don't even have to break any laws to be financially censored. PayPal regularly freezes people's balances for 180 days and does not even provide a reason. The sometimes do this at the behest of political activists looking to use financial pressure to censor their opponents. So, I will accept ransomware as an unavoidable consequence of the greater good - because if all of these people are censored then so am I.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    The only place it has any advantage is crime. The problem is a social one: we need to lobby the government to ensure folks like Snowden are protected, and not allow the tyranny of the minority through spending money in a way that can't be traced or censored. We can all agree sending money to North Korea is bad. [1] Funding ISIS is bad. [2] Ransomware is bad. [3] Wikileaks and Snowden? There's a debate to be had. You're actively circumventing democracy by preventing us from having that debate and by refusing to abide by democracy's decisions. You're attacking symptoms, not problems, with tools that are just broadly worse. Social problems need social solutions, not anarchy and magic beans that live in your computer. Of course that's harder, but it is better, and there's no "number go up" to compensate you. [1] https://bitcoinist.com/un-north-korea-accumulating-cryptocurrency-for-weapons-programs/ https://bitcoinist.com/un-north-korea-accumulating-cryptocur... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/18/technology/terrorists-bitcoin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/18/technology/terrorists-bit... [3] https://phoenixnap.com/blog/ransomware-statistics-facts https://phoenixnap.com/blog/ransomware-statistics-facts