591–600 of 623 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you accrue wealth and can never use it. What’s the point?
Plenty of ways to use crypto wealth. It isn't that hard hard go from accessing Tor on a public WiFi, to say cashing out $100k in physical cash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously! It's FIVE MILLION. That's "I don't ever have to work again" money. What is wrong with people! Probably they want Mercedes, and Rolexes, and Mont Blanc pens and all that showy consumer garbage.
The median lifetime earnings in the US is 1.7 million, and that’s equivalent to... $20 an hour or so. 5 million is “never work again” money for a couple of people who want middle class incomes the rest of their lives... it is not really that much when spread over more than a few people.
This is ignoring the interest
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feels like an inside job. “Oops. We lost all the money of our affiliates. Our money is gone too. No we didn’t take it.” Sure you didn’t.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. If they thought that they could take a golden exit, they wouldn't be continuing to setup the business again under new rules to avoid government scrutiny. They'd just take the money and disappear. The fact that they are continuing means that they want to continue the business. And if they are doing that, then why would they suddenly break all existing contracts? Surely that would ruin…
So, I think there's a good case to be made that this is the best course of action, given they are scared but don't want to quit entirely (which seems clear). It isn't nearly as bad a hit to their reputation as just taking the money and running, so they don't have to hide their identities and rebuild new ones to start over in crime, and they don't lose nearly as much money, and they probably won't lose the clients they actually care about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> another favourite talking point of the crypto people that it secures your money from government access Credibly threatening repeated 51% attacks against Bitcoin is well within any G7 member’s budget.
Actually this ignores the fact that bitcoin uses ASICs now, and every ASIC built for bitcoin hashing is probably already hashing. Semiconductor production can't be scaled up instantly, so 51% attacks require seizure of assets. Even if the USA purchased every single CPU, GPU, FPGA, and ASIC made in the next month, it's unlikely they will have more than 10% of the network or so. To seize the majority of the hashpower,…
> The REvil representative said its program was introducing new restrictions on the kinds of organizations that affiliates could hold for ransom, and that henceforth it would be forbidden to attack those in the “social sector” (defined as healthcare and educational institutions) and organizations in the “gov-sector” (state) of any country. Affiliates also will be required to get approval before infecting victims. Sta…
They only don’t get credit for that in mainstream media. In the Cyber Security world, Ransomware as a Service (and various other malware-aaS) groups have been discussed as well organized, customer-focused entities for quite some time.
I swear this is the first time it seems the world is hearing about RaaS, which feels weird since it’s a pretty dominant model today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do wonder if ransomware is (in a strange way) a(n illegal) free-market response to what is perceived to be an under-valuation of tech skills - aggrieved people who can carry out attacks and gain access to deploy ransomware are likely to be able to earn more through this route, even factoring in their "risk of being caught". Sure. In the same way the mugging people is a response to undervaluing “beating the crap o…
Its been said before: "When the system fails you, you create your own system." Which relates to what you're saying. When clever, intelligent people are ostracized and marginalized, they then use those skills to get illegally what society has prevented them from getting legally. At some point, the idea of getting caught doesn't even register anymore.
Ehh, maybe. Or maybe they’re just bored sociopaths who get thrills looking for a big score.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would the same apply for someone who physically took something essential to national security hostage and then demanded money? Would that change if they, for example, demanded the release of prisoners of a specific political persuasion?
"Would that change if they, for example, demanded the release of prisoners of a specific political persuasion?" Yes. "Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence to achieve political aims." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ransomware is non-state Are there no ransomware operations linked to North Korea? I was under the impression that there was some level of activity there to maintain supplies of globally-usable currency.
North Korea is... A special case, and it is still quite unlike any other country in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that their coins were apparently easily stolen also debunks another favourite talking point of the crypto people that it secures your money from government access. Clearly, ways and means have been developed to do just that if necessary.
> debunks another favourite talking point of the crypto people that it secures your money from government access In order to seize someone's cryptocurrency, the government has to literally seize the private keys used to sign transactions. This could be as easy as seizing computers containing the key but it could also be as hard as torturing people until they reveal their seed phrase. They can't simply order the banks…