3 ms·

>> Is it a way for North Korea to get paid when extorting Western companies? In fact yes, this use case does seem to work. > The "criminals use Bitcoin" while

>> Is it a way for North Korea to get paid when extorting Western companies? In fact yes, this use case does seem to work. > The "criminals use Bitcoin" while true is the weakest of the arguments against the current or future success of Bitcoin. Criminals still primarily use regular ole' fiat currency for this stuff, or have more sophisticated schemes like selling artwork. Cryptocurrency enables criminal schemes that are totally impractical with cash, such as ransomware malware at scale (have you heard of it?). These schemes are an appealing use for cryptocurrency. Legitimate transactions can use conventional payment networks, but these can't and need a lawless transnational payment network like cryptocurrency provides. Also, LOL at the idea that criminals are so busy selling artwork that they have no use for cryptocurrency. > In the case of North Korea they'd have to either mine Bitcoin, or they'd have to convert their currency to Bitcoin. But who would sell to take worthless North Korean money? Unless you mean they convert dollars... in which case they were just using the dollars already. LOL, I don't think you understand what you're trying to debunk at all. The North Korean state wants foreign hard currency, and cryptocurrency is a mechanism for them to acquire that (e.g. through the aforementioned ransomware).

ericmay 4y ago
> Cryptocurrency enables criminal schemes that are totally impractical with cash, such as ransomware malware at scale. These schemes are an appealing use for cryptocurrency, because they require a lawless transnational payment network. Legitimate transactions can use conventional payment networks. Following that line of reasoning, a briefcase full of cash on an airplane to Colombia enabled criminal schemes that were totally impractical. Having a transnational payment network itself enables schemes. So does not having the government track and verify each and every one of your transactions. If you wanted to make a good argument here, you'd actually focus on tradeoffs and cost-benefit for Bitcoin. Is "North Korean ransomware" an acceptable tradeoff to have Bitcoin? Idk. But the prevailing "criminals will do bad things" argument is asinine because criminals did bad stuff before Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency too, and they still mostly use fiat currency for "bad things" right now anyway. The fact that North Korea has to convert Bitcoin into dollars that ostensibly they're not allowed to have just proves the point.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  The point that I was making was that cryptocurrency has significant criminal use-cases (which the GGP was playing down or was ignorant of). While cash can be useful for criminal schemes, it's old and has significant legitimate use due to legacy momentum. Cryptocurrency, on the other hand, is new and post-dates regulated payment networks that efficiently handle nearly all legitimate payments, so it suffers from similar problems to unmoderated internet forums: it actively attracts a disproportionate share of bad actors. I'm not saying that cryptocurrency should be banned for that reason, but it's an important fact to note when it's being denied. IMHO, cryptocurrency isn't the "future of money," because there are no practical reasons for anyone to use it as money. The main reasons people actually use it are (in order): for speculation, criminal activity, or (often questionable) ideological reasons. The latter is a drop in the bucket compared to the first two.
- giaour 4y ago
  Large amounts of fiat currency are heavy, bulky, and difficult to smuggle. The US got rid of $500 and $1K notes because they proved more useful for doing crimes than for doing business, and the same happened with bearer bonds. Criminals will do bad things at scale with cryptocurrency. Ransomware existed before bitcoin, but the amounts demanded were pittances compared to what can be demanded today because the difficulty of using cash or the banking system for a transaction increases exponentially as the amounts involved increase.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Wire transfers exist. Paypal scams, etc. I'm just not convinced anything is fundamentally different here. It's a weak criticism. There are much better ones, and even this criticism is better served by arguing about tradeoffs and benefits instead of trying to find some way to express that Bitcoin is categorically different. It's hard to move cash, but it was harder to move gold ergo we should stop using cash because it's easy for criminals to move and use gold instead. That's the line of reasoning at play here that is espoused by this argument.
    - 4y ago

ericmay 4y ago

> Cryptocurrency enables criminal schemes that are totally impractical with cash, such as ransomware malware at scale. These schemes are an appealing use for cryptocurrency, because they require a lawless transnational payment network. Legitimate transactions can use conventional payment networks. Following that line of reasoning, a briefcase full of cash on an airplane to Colombia enabled criminal schemes that were totally impractical. Having a transnational payment network itself enables schemes. So does not having the government track and verify each and every one of your transactions. If you wanted to make a good argument here, you'd actually focus on tradeoffs and cost-benefit for Bitcoin. Is "North Korean ransomware" an acceptable tradeoff to have Bitcoin? Idk. But the prevailing "criminals will do bad things" argument is asinine because criminals did bad stuff before Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency too, and they still mostly use fiat currency for "bad things" right now anyway. The fact that North Korea has to convert Bitcoin into dollars that ostensibly they're not allowed to have just proves the point.

tablespoon 4y ago
The point that I was making was that cryptocurrency has significant criminal use-cases (which the GGP was playing down or was ignorant of). While cash can be useful for criminal schemes, it's old and has significant legitimate use due to legacy momentum. Cryptocurrency, on the other hand, is new and post-dates regulated payment networks that efficiently handle nearly all legitimate payments, so it suffers from similar problems to unmoderated internet forums: it actively attracts a disproportionate share of bad actors. I'm not saying that cryptocurrency should be banned for that reason, but it's an important fact to note when it's being denied. IMHO, cryptocurrency isn't the "future of money," because there are no practical reasons for anyone to use it as money. The main reasons people actually use it are (in order): for speculation, criminal activity, or (often questionable) ideological reasons. The latter is a drop in the bucket compared to the first two.
giaour 4y ago
Large amounts of fiat currency are heavy, bulky, and difficult to smuggle. The US got rid of $500 and $1K notes because they proved more useful for doing crimes than for doing business, and the same happened with bearer bonds. Criminals will do bad things at scale with cryptocurrency. Ransomware existed before bitcoin, but the amounts demanded were pittances compared to what can be demanded today because the difficulty of using cash or the banking system for a transaction increases exponentially as the amounts involved increase.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Wire transfers exist. Paypal scams, etc. I'm just not convinced anything is fundamentally different here. It's a weak criticism. There are much better ones, and even this criticism is better served by arguing about tradeoffs and benefits instead of trying to find some way to express that Bitcoin is categorically different. It's hard to move cash, but it was harder to move gold ergo we should stop using cash because it's easy for criminals to move and use gold instead. That's the line of reasoning at play here that is espoused by this argument.
  - 4y ago