4 ms·
That is a good point, but we might also end up with yet another layer of criminal organization: "dark exchanges" that allow victims of cybercrime to get cryptoc
by quanticle 5y ago
That is a good point, but we might also end up with yet another layer of criminal organization: "dark exchanges" that allow victims of cybercrime to get cryptocurrency without interacting with the legal financial system. While I would rather that ransoms not be paid at all, if a ransom has to be paid, I'd much rather the company get their cash in a legitimate manner, interacting with financial entities that cooperate with law enforcement, rather than via fences and money launderers.
- tptacek 5y agoAt some point, companies can just arrange for the transfer of suitcases full of cash. The point is that increasing the friction on these crimes reduces their incidence, and that's a point the author provides evidence for.
- rini17 5y agoConsider there is a war on drugs which has repeatedly proven that "increasing the friction" might actually make the situation worse. Broadly criminalizing any and all exchange of money to unauthorized tokens (any more specific definition of a cryptocurrency will be subverted) is likely to end up in that territory.
- tptacek 5y agoSeemed to work well for Viagra spam, and no violent black market for Viagra spam revenue clearing services sprung up.
- rini17 5y agoInteresting, Viagra spam was mitigated by making these payments illegal? I have no idea, any source pls?
- tptacek 5y agoSee: the article we are commenting on.
- rini17 5y agoOh I'm sorry. But the point still stands, the article is mistaken that it would require arranging money transfers to outside the U.S. With bitcoin in the mix, it is not true anymore. Sure, you can call the bank but unlike Viagra, scammers don't need one fixed account there.