| > In first six months of 2021, there was $590 million in ransomware-related activity Well, in the same period, there were about $900 million (edited; I had it wrong the first time, sorry). https://www.blockchain.com/charts/transaction-fees-usd A lower bound of the benefits provided by the network (the transaction fees paid) is 50% higher than the ransomware. I am surprised it is that low, and am sad that the scammers are so successful. But at what point does banning something become warranted? Roads, planes, cities, and spoons are also used by criminals. And "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." I'd rather argue that paying ransoms should be illegal, since it amounts to directly financing criminal activity. > gold, silver, productive assets like stocks and rental properties I also own gold. I live in Romania, not the US. About assets linked to my country: their value would be severely affected in a hyperinflation. Look at Venezuelan real estate: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/historical-data?itemId... Also, confiscations could extend to more paper assets, not just foreign money: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/12/12/venezuel... |
Think about it for a second - of those $900 million in transaction fees, how many of them were transactions involving legal vs illegal activities? Anyone involved in legal activities would have a much easier time and lower fees using ACH, wire transfers and other methods.