[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.