The premise of this article is that cryptocurrency must be stopped because it is used in ransomware. Never mind that “ransomware” is now the new “terrorism”, a

The premise of this article is that cryptocurrency must be stopped because it is used in ransomware. Never mind that “ransomware” is now the new “terrorism”, a catch all boogeyman to excuse civil liberties violations. Let’s look at how he proposes to stop cryptocurrency. By making mining illegal, maybe mining can be stopped in the US and in Europe. But it will continue in many other places, and the network will absolutely still function. Maybe the value of crypto will drop, but this doesn’t matter at all for its use in payment. It obvious to anyone that the course of action he is recommending will not have the effect he says it will. To anticipate this author’s next article- I’m guessing that he will propose making buying and transacting in crypto illegal for US persons. This would also make the value of crypto drop, and might actually also stop a few companies from paying a ransom. But soon enough, overseas “security consultants” would pop up, who could unlock your files for a very hefty fee (really just hiring a non-us person to buy and send the crypto ransom). No simple prohibitions or attacks on crypto would actually stop this. But this does point to the actual way to stop ransomware, without the ridiculous and unworkable overreaches that this author is flogging: Make paying ransoms illegal. This would neatly solve the problem by stopping any ransoms from being paid. The fact that the author contorts himself into mental pretzels to avoid stating the obvious legal solution to ransomware shows how little he actually cares about ransomware, and how much he is just grinding an anti-crypto axe. It’s surprising that UC Berkeley allows him to put their name on such obviously facetious and ill-considered articles.