Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You might disagree, but please don't put words into my mouth i don't disagree, i'm trying to help you understand that what (allegedly) makes bitcoin popular for ransomware and illegal transactions is a set of properties that are also shared with cash. either your argument is that those properties are evil and you're in favor of cashless society where big brother is always in control of all money flows - in which ca…
And you still haven't explained how you would pay for ransomware over the internet via cash. We are talking here about the ransomers being in a different continent even. And we have strict limits on cash to provide a stop of a complete abuse of it for criminal activities. Cash transactions over a certain limit have to be logged, there are physical controls at the borders as well as searches. So having a suitcase of c…
Anyway, ransomware operators request payment in Bitcoin because it's much less hassle than mailing cash. And there's much less risk of theft by dishonest postal workers.
But with thorough mixing and other good OPSEC, Bitcoin can be as anonymous as cash. So that helps protect ransomware operators from arrest. I think that we all agree on that.
However, you seem to see that as a negative for Bitcoin. That it can be used for such horrible things. But I see it as a stress test for using Bitcoin ~anonymously. If assholes infecting people with malware can use Bitcoin safely, that inplies that decent anonymous cowards like me can also safely use Bitcoin.
And if some of them get busted, there's the chance that investigative methods will be revealed, and so I can tweak my OPSEC to deal with them.
Another key benefit is evading all that bullshit about limiting cash transactions. It's not that I'm a criminal, it's just that I don't acknowledge government authority.