I totally agree that Bitcoin should not be primarily identified with criminal activity. However, I think it's very easy to understand where it started and why

I totally agree that Bitcoin should not be primarily identified with criminal activity. However, I think it's very easy to understand where it started and why it generally isn't in bad faith. Digital currencies (of which Bitcoin is the largest and most well known) make certain types of crimes easier (drugs by mail, ransomware). Those crimes (as they are understood) always involve a digital currency so they feel new (even if they aren't in many ways). Most people don't pay attention to digital currencies so it's not surprising that they associate them with new behavior that doesn't seem possible without them. I also suspect that, if you were to break down digital currency activity, that most exchanges of goods and services (as opposed to investments) do choose to use a digital currency because it evades some regulatory processes or laws. With the transaction cost of Bitcoin at over $4[1] (down from over $50 recently), I really doubt that people are using it for many exchanges of goods or services where its digital qualities don't enable the transaction in some way. [1] https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_f... Edit: added a clarification about ransomware and drugs-by-mail. Ransomware and "darkweb markets" are based on older practices that, to an extent, are distinct because of digital currency. Corporate espionage and ransom demands are quite old, but we call generally call it "ransomware" when the extortion is based on holding digital assets and paying digitally as well.