5 ms·

The responsibility lies at the nation-state level, and the clear decision is for Governments to ban the formal exchange of cryptocurrencies. As soon as this oc

The responsibility lies at the nation-state level, and the clear decision is for Governments to ban the formal exchange of cryptocurrencies. As soon as this occurs, ransomware events will collapse since the ransoms will become unpayable. The negatives of cryptocurrencies (ransomware enablement, chip and electricity shortages, scams) clearly outweigh the positives at this point.

cableshaft 5y ago
Cryptocurrencies are decentralized. It would have to be banned literally every country in the world for them not to be able to use it and convert to a non-digital currency. Good luck with that. And I'm sure they'd just invent or go back to some other method -- possibly riskier and more violent -- so they can continue to ransom money from people.
- mytherin 5y ago
  > Cryptocurrencies are decentralized. It would have to be banned literally every country in the world for them not to be able to use it and convert to a non-digital currency. Good luck with that. The effect would not come from the criminals being able to cash out, it would come from the company not being able to cash in. If cryptocurrency were to be banned and public exchanges were closed purchasing cryptocurrency to the tune of millions of dollars worth becomes practically impossible for a regular company without connections in the space. If the company is not able to pay the ransom, the entire venture is pointless. > And I'm sure they'd just invent or go back to some other method -- possibly riskier and more violent -- so they can continue to ransom money from people. Sure, there will be other methods of transferring some amount of money. To the tune of millions of dollars, though? Unlikely. Cryptocurrency enables these companies to pay ransoms of this amount. Without cryptocurrency you might be able to ask for a 50K ransom instead of a 5M ransom, but that reduces your payout by 100X. 5M is enough to retire from. 50K is less than the yearly wage these people can make. It's not like ransomware didn't exist before cryptocurrency, we know what ransomware without cryptocurrency looks like. What cryptocurrency changed is the scale of the payout. Instead of getting a few thousand dollars in gift cards the hackers are now rewarded with millions in bitcoins. It is hard to deny that the change in incentives caused by cryptocurrency is the primary driver behind the huge increase in ransomware attacks in the last few years.
  - bouncycastle 5y ago
    Crypto can work peer-to-peer even with fiat echanges shut down. Sure, it would be more difficult if crypto is illegal, but I think because of the difficulty of getting it, crypto prices would skyrocket. Everyone will also move to using the privacy coins too. So, banning crypto might actually be beneficial for it as it would incentivise crypto projects to improve privacy and decentralization even more. A ban won't stop people from using it or developing it in their homes.
    - mytherin 5y ago
      > Crypto can work peer-to-peer even with fiat echanges shut down. Sure, nowhere in my post do I deny that an underground market won't exist. In fact, I directly hint to the fact that it will exist. What matters for this problem is how easy it is to buy $X million worth of bitcoins for a company. Currently this is easy. If you have $X million in your bank account, you can go to one of these exchanges and buy $X million worth of bitcoin. With the exchanges shut down, how would a company buy $X million worth of bitcoin? Where do they go? How do they not get scammed while doing so? It's not like companies can easily move $X million to another country where it would be legal to buy crypto either. After all, if they could move money in a bank that easily, crypto would not be required at all for the purpose of ransomware. They could just move the $X million directly! People use crypto for ransomware because it is not so easy to move money of this magnitude. > Sure, it would be more difficult if crypto is illegal, but I think because of the difficulty of getting it, crypto prices would skyrocket. That seems unlikely. A bank run seems the most likely scenario with a massive drop in price being the result, even if only a few high-impact regions would make it illegal (e.g. the US and EU). Regular people and large investors would cash out almost immediately upon hearing the news. Why would regular people want to own an illegal currency that they cannot trade for anything besides maybe drugs on the black market? The reason the majority of people own crypto now is not because of the utility - it is because there are legal crypto exchanges that they can use to trade them back to the actual currency that they use (generally dollars or euros). If people have to go through illegal networks in order to perform these exchanges (and remember, exchanges for fiat money would be illegal and hence risky) the entire value proposition is lost. > Everyone will also move to using the privacy coins too. So, banning crypto might actually be beneficial for it as it would incentivise crypto projects to improve privacy and decentralization even more. I wouldn't even propose banning cryptocurrencies entirely. Shutting down the exchanges and banning the trade of cryptocurrency for fiat seems more than sufficient for this purpose. Cryptocurrencies can continue to exist on their own and perhaps find a use/purpose of their own. The back-and-forth exchange for fiat is what is problematic. This might even be good for cryptocurrencies as a platform, as the focus would shift back to the underlying technology and its use cases rather than the investor crowd that doesn't give a shit about the technology and only cares about making a quick buck.
kemonocode 5y ago
If you believe banning cryptocurrencies will suddenly stop ransomware, then I have a bridge to sell you.
- this_user 5y ago
  There is an easy fix here: make it illegal for companies to transact in crypt currencies. Then they would have no way of paying a ransom without engaging in illegal activities. This would destroy the ransomware business model.
  - kemonocode 5y ago
    Then you hire the services of brokers that don't have the same compunctions about transacting in crypto. And even if you were to magically erase all cryptocurrency from the earth, it wouldn't still stop ransomware, or the same state sponsored actors would gravitate towards even worse things. It's like nobody has learned a thing from the war on drugs, my point being: you deal with the root cause of the disease (infosec in most companies and even government offices is a joke and bad people have taken notice), not playing whack-a-mole with the symptoms (crypto use) that hint towards systemic decay.
    - mike00632 5y ago
      The root cause is the blackmailers/thieves committing the crime, not that the crime was easy. Addressing the root cause might include things like improving education and reducing poverty. That in combination with a bam on paying ransoms would likely reduce these crimes.
  - dmoy 5y ago
    There was ransomware before crypto currencies. There will be ransomware after crypto currencies.
    - crummy 5y ago
      There was? How did it work? Bank transfers?
bouncycastle 5y ago
This view is similar to saying things like "The terrorists and the media have a symbiotic relationship and the media is responsible for enabling terrorist attacks, therefore let's ban the media".
qyi 5y ago
Ah yes, we should outlaw the ability for people to send money to each other and have civilization take the burden of incompetent corporations that can't be bothered to follow basic infosec practices (let alone whatever product they are selling in the first place is probably garbage and has no value beyond monopoly).
ohyeshedid 5y ago
The ransom side is already a crime, and it being labeled a crime doesn't stop it from happening. Laws don't prevent crime.

cableshaft 5y ago

Cryptocurrencies are decentralized. It would have to be banned literally every country in the world for them not to be able to use it and convert to a non-digital currency. Good luck with that. And I'm sure they'd just invent or go back to some other method -- possibly riskier and more violent -- so they can continue to ransom money from people.

mytherin 5y ago
> Cryptocurrencies are decentralized. It would have to be banned literally every country in the world for them not to be able to use it and convert to a non-digital currency. Good luck with that. The effect would not come from the criminals being able to cash out, it would come from the company not being able to cash in. If cryptocurrency were to be banned and public exchanges were closed purchasing cryptocurrency to the tune of millions of dollars worth becomes practically impossible for a regular company without connections in the space. If the company is not able to pay the ransom, the entire venture is pointless. > And I'm sure they'd just invent or go back to some other method -- possibly riskier and more violent -- so they can continue to ransom money from people. Sure, there will be other methods of transferring some amount of money. To the tune of millions of dollars, though? Unlikely. Cryptocurrency enables these companies to pay ransoms of this amount. Without cryptocurrency you might be able to ask for a 50K ransom instead of a 5M ransom, but that reduces your payout by 100X. 5M is enough to retire from. 50K is less than the yearly wage these people can make. It's not like ransomware didn't exist before cryptocurrency, we know what ransomware without cryptocurrency looks like. What cryptocurrency changed is the scale of the payout. Instead of getting a few thousand dollars in gift cards the hackers are now rewarded with millions in bitcoins. It is hard to deny that the change in incentives caused by cryptocurrency is the primary driver behind the huge increase in ransomware attacks in the last few years.
- bouncycastle 5y ago
  Crypto can work peer-to-peer even with fiat echanges shut down. Sure, it would be more difficult if crypto is illegal, but I think because of the difficulty of getting it, crypto prices would skyrocket. Everyone will also move to using the privacy coins too. So, banning crypto might actually be beneficial for it as it would incentivise crypto projects to improve privacy and decentralization even more. A ban won't stop people from using it or developing it in their homes.
  - mytherin 5y ago
    > Crypto can work peer-to-peer even with fiat echanges shut down. Sure, nowhere in my post do I deny that an underground market won't exist. In fact, I directly hint to the fact that it will exist. What matters for this problem is how easy it is to buy $X million worth of bitcoins for a company. Currently this is easy. If you have $X million in your bank account, you can go to one of these exchanges and buy $X million worth of bitcoin. With the exchanges shut down, how would a company buy $X million worth of bitcoin? Where do they go? How do they not get scammed while doing so? It's not like companies can easily move $X million to another country where it would be legal to buy crypto either. After all, if they could move money in a bank that easily, crypto would not be required at all for the purpose of ransomware. They could just move the $X million directly! People use crypto for ransomware because it is not so easy to move money of this magnitude. > Sure, it would be more difficult if crypto is illegal, but I think because of the difficulty of getting it, crypto prices would skyrocket. That seems unlikely. A bank run seems the most likely scenario with a massive drop in price being the result, even if only a few high-impact regions would make it illegal (e.g. the US and EU). Regular people and large investors would cash out almost immediately upon hearing the news. Why would regular people want to own an illegal currency that they cannot trade for anything besides maybe drugs on the black market? The reason the majority of people own crypto now is not because of the utility - it is because there are legal crypto exchanges that they can use to trade them back to the actual currency that they use (generally dollars or euros). If people have to go through illegal networks in order to perform these exchanges (and remember, exchanges for fiat money would be illegal and hence risky) the entire value proposition is lost. > Everyone will also move to using the privacy coins too. So, banning crypto might actually be beneficial for it as it would incentivise crypto projects to improve privacy and decentralization even more. I wouldn't even propose banning cryptocurrencies entirely. Shutting down the exchanges and banning the trade of cryptocurrency for fiat seems more than sufficient for this purpose. Cryptocurrencies can continue to exist on their own and perhaps find a use/purpose of their own. The back-and-forth exchange for fiat is what is problematic. This might even be good for cryptocurrencies as a platform, as the focus would shift back to the underlying technology and its use cases rather than the investor crowd that doesn't give a shit about the technology and only cares about making a quick buck.

kemonocode 5y ago

If you believe banning cryptocurrencies will suddenly stop ransomware, then I have a bridge to sell you.

this_user 5y ago
There is an easy fix here: make it illegal for companies to transact in crypt currencies. Then they would have no way of paying a ransom without engaging in illegal activities. This would destroy the ransomware business model.
- kemonocode 5y ago
  Then you hire the services of brokers that don't have the same compunctions about transacting in crypto. And even if you were to magically erase all cryptocurrency from the earth, it wouldn't still stop ransomware, or the same state sponsored actors would gravitate towards even worse things. It's like nobody has learned a thing from the war on drugs, my point being: you deal with the root cause of the disease (infosec in most companies and even government offices is a joke and bad people have taken notice), not playing whack-a-mole with the symptoms (crypto use) that hint towards systemic decay.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    The root cause is the blackmailers/thieves committing the crime, not that the crime was easy. Addressing the root cause might include things like improving education and reducing poverty. That in combination with a bam on paying ransoms would likely reduce these crimes.
- dmoy 5y ago
  There was ransomware before crypto currencies. There will be ransomware after crypto currencies.
  - crummy 5y ago
    There was? How did it work? Bank transfers?

bouncycastle 5y ago

This view is similar to saying things like "The terrorists and the media have a symbiotic relationship and the media is responsible for enabling terrorist attacks, therefore let's ban the media".

qyi 5y ago

Ah yes, we should outlaw the ability for people to send money to each other and have civilization take the burden of incompetent corporations that can't be bothered to follow basic infosec practices (let alone whatever product they are selling in the first place is probably garbage and has no value beyond monopoly).

ohyeshedid 5y ago

The ransom side is already a crime, and it being labeled a crime doesn't stop it from happening. Laws don't prevent crime.