3 ms·

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-digit

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.

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.