Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there was no such thing as cyber crime prior to the invention of cryptocurrency.
Not on the scale we're seeing now.
There are also a lot more computers and things running software now.
The Oncoming Ransomware Storm
141–147 of 147 posts
Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm
#142FYI, the author has a huge conflict of interest whenever he writes about cryptocurrency, seeing as he's the founder of Adjoint, Inc, a company which digitizes cash and settlement processes for multinational corporates. So it's easy to see why he hates a technology that renders his entire company useless.
Or, he founded a blockchain company only to realize that blockchain, and byzantine consensus, is a terrible way to do things.
You seem to share an anti-crytpo outlook and a history of musings on Haskell with the OP. Are you related in some way? You even have another comment [0] defending him. Crying foul.
Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
That article doesn't call for a ban ? It says: The most expedient actions would be fourfold: Halt all wire transfers of dollars in and out of cryptocurrency exchanges. Halt foreign entities trading in dollar cash-equivalent crypto assets. Add Chinese and other foreign cryptocurrency exchanges hiding in tax-havens to sanctioned entities lists. Regulate the sale of any existing cryptocurrency assets to US persons by cl…
Here is a tweet where he literally says "crypto should be outright banned": https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1391655510760431617 There, can you stop being so obtuse now? You are wrong. My point is that the author is calling for a ban and that nobody was putting words in his mouth, as you suggested.
> "There, can you stop being so obtuse now?"
It isn't "obtuse" to ask you to back up your sneering with evidence. It also seems to have no relevance to this thread and "why arguments of this kind are so common"?
Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume a money-laundering step (aka: a cryptocoin mixer service) needs to be used to practically extract wealth from a criminal activity. If you directly use the money from a wallet directly related to a ransomware attack, the police would be on your tail almost immediately. A cryptocoin mixing service is cheaper than traditional money laundering. So cryptocoins are the ideal solution to criminal activities (at lea…
Some places the cops don't care. And $100M would be a lot of Tide pods.
> And $100M would be a lot of Tide pods.
That's true. They'd probably launder through some other commodity: cocaine for instance, or other contraband.
I know that Tide Detergent was highly sought after by criminals, because of how easy it is to sell on the streets. Its got a highly consistent price around the country, so all you need to do is sell at slightly below market rates and bam, your money-laundering scheme is complete.
And unlike cash, Tide Detergent doesn't really have a serial-number that's tracked by the Secret Service (or other police organizations). So its better than cash in many respects. But its still an item that's in the ~$10 to $20 range at best.
More expensive commodities and/or contraband probably would make better sense at the 100M sizes.
Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
It 100% is an ad hominem response. I'm not trying to address his arguments whatsoever and am very low on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. And again, I do agree with many of his points. I just personally don't think banning cryptocurrencies (or pretty much anything) is the answer, and the very "ban-happy" attitude colors my impression of all of this and makes it less likely that I'd want to attempt to address their…
I guess I’d like to see either a) a genuine engagement with the actual arguments made or b) alternative proposals that make his proposed solution moot. It seems to me that a strong dislike of the cryptocurrency space is an entirely reasonable & rational position to take at this point in time: the harm done with & by cryptocurrencies is now very obvious - if cryptocurrency boosters can demonstrate positive outcomes th…
I definitely wouldn't call myself a cryptocurrency booster. I similarly wouldn't call myself a Tor booster. But if I saw someone advocating that governments should ban Tor ("what's the point except facilitating illegal activity and harassment/ban evasion/spam/malware/DDoSing/hacking"), I'd definitely want to counter that.
If I ever make my own blog or something, I could write a thorough response to all of his own blog posts, including this one, but I think it's too much to ask for in an HN comment. (I also don't have nearly enough expertise to warrant making a blog or writing a blog post just for something like that.)
I already wrote some responses with regards to ransomware in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27096137, where I argue the root of the problem is the Russian government's policy of not in any way inhibiting cybercriminals as long as the criminals don't target Russian/Russia-allied citizens. I don't think banning cryptocurrency would help decrease ransomware that much. Ransomware was still prevalent before Bitcoin existed; it was just a much more immature space, with much less sophisticated and damaging malware. The top ransomware operators are either going to find alternatives, or, more likely, just circumvent the bans through various means.
Regarding the other externalities associated with cryptocurrencies, I think many of his points are valid. There's absolutely no mention of the positive outcomes, though.
I don't know if those positive outcomes outweigh those harms now or if they will in the future; it depends how you calculate it. I don't know if the positive outcomes of Tor now or ever will outweigh the negative outcomes. I still don't want either banned.
And I think a good case could be made that the positive outcomes may outweigh the negative ones, for Proof of Stake-based smart contract protocols like the upcoming Ethereum 2.0, which will likely be out this year. (And please none of this ridiculous "Proof of Stake is vaporware and continuously promised to be just around the corner, like cold fusion", because it's not true. Tons of progress has been made and is being made every day.)
I don't think cryptocurrencies (like ether) are necessarily that interesting, but decentralized smart contract protocols (like Ethereum) are super technologically and societally interesting.
I think I could write an even longer blog post about the core problem I have with this writing. I would feel this way if I read someone writing like this about almost any topic imaginable in the world. It's extremely one-sided, unnuanced, uncharitable, unrigorous, and comes across as very emotionally charged and biased. (And all this was before I learned he's the founder of a company that's trying to compete with cryptocurrencies in many ways.) The tone and style is the main thing I dislike.
Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm
#146Re: The Oncoming Ransomware Storm
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
30 years ago there was ransomware in the wild: 1989 -Popp/ AIDS trojan 2005 - GPCoder trojan 2017 - notpetya (AKA the moller maersk hack) https://actzero.ai/resources/white-paper/the-rise-of-ransomw...
I was referring more to general attacks, the type that would have seemed too far-fetched decade(s) ago.
The first ever computer virus (arguably) was “brain”, arguably ransomware:
https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-malware-when-were-com...
Needless to say, it predated cryptocurrency by decades and it’s creators are at the very least millionaires.