[whereis]

Most/all of those methods have (often much) greater friction than cryptocurrency. I'd guess that, if cryptocurrency were banned domestically, the payouts would significantly decrease, and probably reduce the frequency of these attacks.

But, even then, such a ban would probably have a negative effect on cybersecurity progress, since these incidents are motivating fundamental changes to cybersecurity awareness, policies, procedures, and technology.

[whizzwr]

The main problem is the malware that makes you lost access to your data. (Pseudo-)anonymous payment (BTC is not fully anonymous) that facilitates the payment is just a side effect.

Backup and threat management directly address the main problem. Banning crypto just like you say, deter the payout potential, but it leaves the malware as is.

It's pretty funny when we talk ransomware payment in term of friction—as if we are talking about new payment method user which user will be inconvenienced.

Criminals doing criminal transaction don't care about 'friction', they will grind through any obstacle to move the money.

[qualudeheart]

You still need to convert crypto into fiat at some point.

A criminal group can just hire poor people to make bitcoin exchange and bank accounts under their identities.

They can use other methods to sucker people into working for them.

So yeah criminals can get around most forms of kyc either through id theft or by employing „volunteers“.

[failwhaleshark]

Gift cards seem to be more stable than crypto (held value) and very anonymous (purchasable with cash, no-questions-asked). They do have the friction of limited amounts, the overhead of managing many cards, their acquisition without questions by employing many couriers, and liquidation.

Crypto has issues in purchasing, mixing, and liquidating.

PS: I wonder if anyone is using gift card networks for money-laundering? The answer is always "yes."