[daaang]

> The singular reason why these attacks are even possible is due entirely to rise of cryptocurrency. And is entirely enabled by this one technology, it could not exist otherwise.

Huh, cryptocurrency existed in 1989, when the first ransomware was active? Did the author even google the word "ransomware?"

Wire transfers and all types of pre-paid voucher services were used well before cryptocurrencies were even created.

[mytherin]

The article directly addresses your point in the paragraph surrounding the sentence you cherry picked.

> Now this is not a new phenomenon by any means. But what is new is that the level of these attacks has gone parabolic in the last few years because of one simple fact. With the addition of bitcoin to the problem it’s insanely profitable, low-risk, and almost the perfect crime. It’s also a very real economic tool that nation states can use to disrupt each other’s infrastructure.

> The singular reason why these attacks are even possible is due entirely to rise of cryptocurrency. Consider the same situation on top of the existing international banking system. Go to your local bank branch and try to wire transfer $200,000 to an anonymous stranger in Russia and see how that works out. Modern ransomware could not exist without Bitcoin, it has poured gasoline on a fire we may not be able to put out.

[daaang]

I agree, the author contradicts themselves immediately. Cryptocurrency is not the "singular" reason, and it is not why these attacks are even "possible."

The hypothetical they picked might not work. The methods that ransomware was using for decades to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars did, and will continue to work.

[mytherin]

You are still taking words out of context. Clearly the author agrees that cryptocurrency is not the singular reason behind *all* ransomware, considering he states it is not a new phenomenon. The sentence you took out of context relates to *modern* ransomware:

> The singular reason why these attacks are even possible is due entirely to rise of cryptocurrency.... Modern ransomware could not exist without Bitcoin, it has poured gasoline on a fire we may not be able to put out.

The question is not if ransomware would still exist without cryptocurrency (obviously it would, it existed before then). The question is if it would still be as pervasive as it has become in the last few years without cryptocurrency.

[daaang]

I agree, it's very poorly written.

"These attacks" are defined as "automated exploitation of computer networks that aims to extract cash from the owner of that network" and "cryptocurrency" is "the singular reason" why "these attacks" are "even possible."

Later on the author shamelessly tries to shift that definition to "modern ransomware" (the same trick you're attempting here).

Why do they need to resort to that? Because they're wrong.