Topic: Ransomware hacks linked to Crypto are killing Bitcoin slowly !! - page 2. (Read 343 times)

I agree with you that it is bad, and it’s definitely going to give a lot of the oppositions of Bitcoin more reasons to go against it as they do. I haven’t heard of this particular news that you posted here, but there was one I saw around last week, which is the same story of hackers hacking a big company and demanding for Bitcoin as payment. But, the news said that the funds that were sent to the hackers were seized by the FBI.

I don’t know how they managed to seize funds that were sent through Bitcoin. According to the news the FBI have yet to make any statement on that. But don’t forget that Bitcoin can’t be banned completely.

In the past the ransoms were paid in cash. Internet has diversified the ways one can attack and ask for ransom, crypto made the money transfer faster. But ransoms did exist even before.
So imho still the internet is the one doing more "damage" than crypto...

It's linked in some way, because most ransomwares are demanding that bitcoin is used to pay for the ransom because they know that it is pseudonymous and they can mix it to further blur the cyber trail for their bitcoin.

Hihi, pretty simple.

First, once cryptos would be banned by the US the price would probably end up in a couple of hundred dollars, so good luck demanding a ransom that takes 3-5% of all the coins in the world, and this in one attack, all the markets will end up being sales from hackers to victims.

If cryptos would be illegal in the US for example, a company could not pay the ransom in the first place because they would end up doing something illegal the moment they purchase it, same for home users would rather dump all they two years of work than spending the same amount in jail. Hackers would simply abandon this and focus on companies that are based in countries where you can still buy those coins to pay the ransomware.  Of course, they could switch on demanding  cocaine for ransomware but I have a feeling the shipping and tax on this are more of a headache.

But leaving far-fetched scenarios aside, everyone needs to invest more in security, backup solutions, and personnel training, if somebody was able to sabotage this for money they could do it next time just for fun, cryptos, or no cryptos.


Exactly, too many try to view governments as enemies and picturing them in fear of BTC, those movements are made of people, with different views with different opinions and most importantly they are being replaced one by one. Of course, unless you believe in some reptilian overlord that rules over everything.

Do we really think ransomware is just linked to bitcoin. It's always easier to justify bitcoin with such malicious action and activities since it's not too private but if do a proper research, you will agree with me that this is actual ransom ware is mostly done by Fiat because it's the inky store of value that cannot be trace one's victim pay money except fiat that were printed from Bank with the only Identification.
Do banks actually have that time to purposely print fiat for a single person? I bet No but they can go brrrrrr for the FEDS

Crypto ransomware is nothing new.

Rogue nations have had dealings in illegal credit cards and stolen personal information before cryptocurrency was invented. There are state sponsored criminal markets revolving around the theft and distribution of banking related data and money. The federal reserve itself has been hacked 50 times in 4 years.


The media exclusively covers ransomware and financial breaches related to crypto and ransomware. While ignoring the identical role banks, credit card companies and similar institutions play in financial breaches.

How would this prevent cyber attacks? Crypto will still work even if you ban it, but now investigators will have less chances to catch the criminals and seize the funds, because there's no centralized exchanges that would cooperate with them.


As if governments needed any excuse to do it. If they really wanted it, they would have done it a long time ago.

Unfortunately an "anonymous" and no reversible asset with a wide pool of users to disguise it is basically ripe for this sort of abuse. I can only see it getting worse and it could really be the thing that will tarnish cryptocurrencies reputation forever. If you start to associate large scale criminal activity, that is primarily benefiting lawless and undemocratic nations, with Bitcoin because hackers are attacking companies each week - then it will start to draw even heavier regulation. We saw that sometimes it is actually causing mass harm to wide sections of the public like with the pipeline hack (where a ransom was paid yet the damage was still present) driving up fuel prices and causing great economic difficulties. Politicians simply won't be able to stand by doing nothing to counter it.

With all eyes starting to focus on Bitcoin, it is difficult for fraudsters to hide your coins source using Bitcoin.
If you are a scammer, ask for Meonero instead of asking for bitcoin will make it an easy for you to hide your ID.
I don't think a few attacks will prompt lawmakers to put in place anti-Bitcoin laws, I mean if Bitcoin is banned globally, would you expect hacks or blackmail, ransom demands or those attacks? No.

Why would governments ban the payment method demanded by such attacks and not just urge big companies to beef up their security systems? It doesn't make sense..

Ransomware has been around for years, even without the advent of crypto it was already happening, just not publicized and sensationalized like what's happening today. True that bitcoin and crypto will get the negative press and all that stuff, but will it lead for crypto to be banned just because nefarious groups ask for it as a payment for their exploits? I think not. Strict regulation on cryptocurrencies may be a result of other things, but certainly not this one.

It will not be a fuel for a cryptocurrency ban, but this will surely be one of the most used narrative on why crypto is bad—at least for the common folk jumping straight to conclusions.

Why? And why should all the governments do this if one of them takes action against it?
You just mentioned that some might be powered by a government so aren't it obvious that the same government is interested in keeping cryptos alive?
If Russia is behind the attacks and the US decides to ban it, why would Russia do the same?

One more thing, I find it funny for this topic to come from you, you were one of those radical supporters, that nothing can stop bitcoin, bitcoin is not used for crime, etc, etc, where has the change come from? Are you submitting to FUD? 


Did Colonial or JSB require the internet to function? Yeah!
Did they nee crypto to that? Nope! Could hackers do this without cryptos? Nope!

How many ransomware attacks have happened in the time there was internet and no cryptos, before 2010 let's say ?

I wouldn't put it past any government (especially the US) to do that, though logically it would be a stupid reason for them to ban or over-regulate crypto.  Unfortunately the average person doesn't think the way bitcoiners do and don't realize that it's not bitcoin's fault that these hackers are doing what they're doing.  Bitcoin--or whatever cryptocurrency the hackers are asking for--just happens to be what's being requested as payment.  What if they asked for cash, or a bag full of gold bullion?  Would anyone even consider banning cash or gold?  Not likely.

It's unfortunate that this is happening, but I suppose with a form of money as easily transferable and pseudo-anonymous as bitcoin is, it was inevitable that it was going to be involved with ransoms and other forms of crime.  What I'm thinking is that a lot depends on how much bad press bitcoin gets because of the ransomware attacks.  If the bitcoin aspect of it isn't played up, I seriously doubt government regulators will be urgently moved to take any action against it.  Keeping my fingers crossed.

See you are so focused on the "price" impact and how media attention will increase the price.. that you are missing the whole point.

We do not want all the negative attention, because it will cause a ripple affect... where one country decides to ban Crypto currencies (using these hacks as an excuse) and then other countries jumping onto that bandwagon and doing the same.

We already have Butthurt Yellen  wanting to take revenge on "The Bitcoin Guy" ..... so these hacks will just give her ammunition to do just that.. (When the USA goes down, the others will follow) 

I'd agree because Bitcoin is only an alternative payment that the hacker use to hide his identity, not the problem itself. But other people might have a different perspective, they would think if Bitcoin got banned and no one will use it, the hacker will not have other pseudonymous currency again. If the hacker use fiat, of course it will be easy to trace him.

---

IMO it will not killing Bitcoin, probably a dump or even worst case is crash. Bitcoin space is full of newcomer that want to earn instant profit without understanding Bitcoin first, this is main problem we faced right now because they would do panic selling if they read FUDs.

Well, they use the internet for this and I don't expect internet get killed/banned because of this.
What I mean is that although it could give some short term ammo to this or that bitcoin hater, on the long term all this won't matter and Bitcoin will prevail, maybe even get stronger.
And since bitcoin payments can be tracked, .. let them use Bitcoin. It'll help governments understand that Bitcoin is not that bad after all.

I remember wannacry in 2017, Bitcoin also reached ATH at the end of 2017. Hacking companies over a computer network is also a way to promote Bitcoin to people around the world.
Bitcoin is a global currency and it needs more attention.
In data attacks that require payment in Bitcoin, the problem is not with Bitcoin because it is only a payment unit. The problem lies in how to set up the data encryption protocol to blackmail, so that's the job of cybersecurity organizations. We should not blame Bitcoin.

still remember when North Korea built a cyber team under the auspices of the government to hack and raise funds in addition to their military power funds. In my opinion, this pattern is almost the same and there is a possibility that asking for payment with crypto is obviously very difficult to detect because of the very strong anonymity.

As for the last impact, namely the mass ban, I strongly disagree. so back to the policies they found from the hackers.

when actually hackers take advantage of the anonymity of crypto, then those of us who don't care will be affected?
Isn't that policy overkill? generalize in its entirety without incriminating evidence?

Well Internet and data storage could also just require government qualification/certification in order to be safely stored.

Private peoples data capable of being encrypted by a hacker is also capable of being cloned to an attacker's machine - this should be the focus.

Hacking attempts are unlikely to see crypto being banned in Europe and North America at least. Also, any mention of cryptocurrency/bitcoin in the media is still keeping it on people's minds.

Don't be too worried, banning bitcoin because of bitcoin it would be like banning fiat money because of drug dealers. Ransomware will not kill bitcoin, relax.
Average people approach to cyber security is basically meaningless and we can expect this phenomenon only to grow in the coming years.
Bitcoin-wise, again, don't worry too much. Nothing to see here.

If the white hats found a way to counter the black hats and locate the money even in crypto, I am pretty sure that they can prevent the death of bitcoin. Also, it's not going to be an outright ban for the government just because it was used for cybercrime, I am sure that regulations will still be useful for this one.