In the world of media, “If she bleeds, she drives,” is still very much a fashionable trope. However, when it comes to Bitcoin, there’s a new trope in town: “If it’s misleading, it leads.”
lately Article – Commodity to New Republic Jacob Silverman, a very talented writer, discusses the talk Ransomware attack on JBS foods. On Sunday, May 30, the world’s largest meat processor suffered a massive cyber attack, which shut down a number of its operations in the United States and Australia. attackers Student Payment by cryptocurrency. The JBS attack occurred shortly after Colonial Pipeline, one of the largest US pipeline operators, admitted paying an estimated $4.4 million in bitcoin ransom.
What is Silverman’s solution to the problem of ransom attacks? Bitcoin ban. By identifying a very real problem and providing a faulty solution, Silverman makes a fundamental error in reasoning.
Why Regulating Bitcoin Is Like Herding Cats
The irritable biologist Richard Dawkins once compared the movement of atheists to herding cats. atheists argue, “You tend to think independently and will not correspond to authority.” This trend can also be applied to the Bitcoin world. If fiat are domesticated dogs, which are relatively predictable and largely controlled by their owners (i.e. central banks), then bitcoin is a lot like a pack of wild cats that roam the hills: highly volatile, explosive in nature and benevolent For one, not even Elon Musk.
How do you take care of cats? How will you proceed to ban Bitcoin? The previous sentence might already be grammatically sound, but that’s where the safety ends. After all, for the ban to be truly effective, each of the world’s 195 nations must sing from the same hymn sheet. One does not need to be a scholar of international relations to realize one simple fact: the chances of this happening are all non-existent. And as recent developments in El Salvador, Paraguay and Mexico show, more countries are gearing up for the idea of adopting bitcoin as legal tender.
Moreover, even though the recent ransomware attacks have mainly affected Americans, it is best not to look at Bitcoin from an American perspective. There are tens of millions of bitcoin users all over the world, from New York to New Delhi, from Bogota to Baghdad. So what would happen if the Biden administration decided to ban Bitcoin?
In the United States alone, according to a the new According to the Atlantic Council report, 46 million Americans now own bitcoin. In addition, Satoshi Nakomoto, who created cryptocurrency, is much more than a currency: it’s a movement, an idea, and a powerful one at that, an idea that resonates around the world. You cannot block an idea.
Calling for a ban on bitcoin is like calling for a ban on the internet. It is neither logical nor feasible. Ask yourself this question as well, even if a bitcoin ban is imposed, how will you stop ransomware attacks?
Such types of attacks are just an ever-evolving form of ransomware, where a sum of money is demanded in exchange for someone or something that has been stolen. There is plenty of reason to believe that ransomware attacks will continue to happen even if Bitcoin is banned – which it won’t. Such attacks have occurred with Frequency increase For more than thirty years. Bitcoin may provide additional incentive to engage in these types of attacks, but assuming that a ban will magically end ransomware attacks seems misplaced, if not downright foolish.
As the aforementioned Atlantic Council report notes, “In 1989, a widespread ransom attack against scientists required them to send a cashier’s check or money order to a mailbox in Panama. People sometimes do bad things with paper money, including using it to pay the ransom. “.
With Bitcoin, there is always the risk of being all or nothing and getting around the axis of absolutism. When this happens, nuance is lost and emotions overwhelm judgment. For those already with an aversion to Bitcoin, the recent cyber attacks provided the perfect opportunity to point the finger, albeit in the wrong direction.
Instead of choosing the US to ban cryptocurrency, how about doing more to protect US infrastructure from hackers? How about investing more in cyber security? How about training more people to detect and combat such attacks? When it comes to protecting companies from further acts of cybercrime, the focus is on the real issues, such as chronic Underfunding cybersecurity makes much more sense than targeting bitcoin.
Misleading views of Bitcoin lead to the creation of more and more misleading views, thus creating a never-ending cycle of misinformation. This explains why many individuals, well-meaning or otherwise, want to comment on something they clearly don’t understand. Banning Bitcoin won’t solve the real problem. In fact, it will not cure anything, because banning bitcoins is not really possible.
There is a reason why hackers target American companies and infrastructure with such alarming frequency. Because they are able to expose glaring weaknesses that the current administration has failed to address. The United States is busy investing in the machines used in yesterday’s wars. But times have changed, and that has changed greatly.
In this new age of war, the battlefields of tomorrow will not be located in the rural hinterland of Syria or Afghanistan, but in cyberspace. Addressing the problem of inadequate cyber defense systems would serve the Biden administration well. More attacks are inevitable. It is much easier to scapegoat Bitcoin than it is to deal with a real elephant in the room. Bitcoin critics would do well to remember that.
This is a guest post by John Mac Ghlionn. The opinions expressed are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.