bear2034 said:

---

Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z

— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024

The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.

---

Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.

bear2034 said:

---

Evidence they can exchange for USD at much higher values.

---

I assume that is a joke.

If anything, they will be returned to the entity that paid the ransom.

bear2034 said:

---

The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.

---

You're not very bright.
You're reading comprehension appears to be stuck at the 4th grade level.

Why does Tucker Carlson always look like a dog trying to understand a magic trick? pic.twitter.com/Wx77Y0dL2t

— Gwdihŵ 🦉 (@youwouldknow) September 18, 2020

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z

— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024

The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.

---

Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.

---

This is not true.

---

It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?

Genocide Joe said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.

---

This is not true.

---

What crypto (still) gets wrong https://t.co/gjOlUMT3z2

— Financial Times (@FT) March 16, 2024

---

When Madoff was found to have perpetuated a decades-long Ponzi scheme, did you blame the dollar? Or Madoff?

Bitcoin money laundering only makes up 0.9% of money laundering in the U.S. and only 0.3% globally.

The amount of bitcoin that was criminally exchanged in 2019 was $2.8 billion. While this might seem like a lot, it pales in comparison to the potentially trillions of dollars laundered annually around the globe.

The currency of choice for money launderers, terrorists, drug dealers, and criminals around the world is still fiat currency.

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z

— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024

The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.

---

Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.

---

This is not true.

---

It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e

The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.

But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.

And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.

---

Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.

bear2034 said:

---

Wrong thread again, bro.

---

Sorry bro.
Didn't mean to trigger you bro.
My apologies bro.

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z

— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024

The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.

---

Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.

---

This is not true.

---

It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e

The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.

But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.

And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.

---

Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.

---

I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.

That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.

I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z

— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024

The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.

---

Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.

---

This is not true.

---

It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e

The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.

But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.

And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.

---

Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.

---

I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.

That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.

I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.

---

You lost the plot again.

My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z

— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024

The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.

---

Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.

---

This is not true.

---

It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e

The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.

But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.

And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.

---

Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.

---

I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.

That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.

I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.

---

You lost the plot again.

My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .

---

You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.

See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.

Genocide Joe said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.

See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.

---

I understand. For what it's worth, I read the Fidelity link and thought about the points it was making.

The thing about strawmen is that the best way not to be accused of making those arguments is not to make them in the first place. People made some countervailing arguments, some of which I thought had some real merit and you didn't engage in a lot of those. I was trying to give you credit for some fair points I thought you made, but I also wanted to bring in some different opinions as well.

Interestingly, since I am not much of an investor myself (I pretty much just pick from the investment options my retirement account gives me and then however those funds perform let me know whether I'll be a men's room attendant at age 80 or not), I did a quick web search on how to buy a bitcoin and this is the first thing that popped up.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/how-to-buy-bitcoin/

Some quotes:

Quote:

---

Some analysts believe the price of Bitcoin could rise even further as cryptocurrency and blockchain technology become a bigger part of people's daily lives. But buying Bitcoin comes with big risks. Along with impressive gains, BTC has also experienced devastating declines.

Today, BTC remains a highly volatile asset. Investors who purchased Bitcoin in the bull market of 2021 will have experienced a lossbut those who bought before late 2020 could be looking at decent gains.

---

Quote:

---

Experts generally agree that cryptocurrencies shouldn't make up more than 5% of your portfolio.

---

Quote:

---

The most Bitcoin ever traded for is $68,789 in November 2021. The most recent Bitcoin bottom was in December 2022. At that time, Bitcoin traded for $16,291. That's a 76% decrease in price over the course of approximately one year.

As you can see, the price of Bitcoin is extremely volatile, and it can fluctuate widely.

---

Quote:

---

When Bitcoin's price goes to the moon, investing in the popular cryptocurrency can be tempting. But while it has the potential to be a lucrative investment, you should be cautious: It's an incredibly volatile purchase, and experts don't recommend you allocate a large percentage to this risky asset class.

---

I don't think any of the above is way out of line with some of my thoughts on it.

For what it's worth, I learned a lot from the whole exchange.

---

It's frustrating because every thing you've quoted Ive tried to address in this thread and several others. It's volatility, other cryptos usurping bitcoin, its allocation in portfolios etc. There are reasons and considerations that I've talked about several times. I'm not blaming you for not going back and finding them though. I get it's a me problem, that a college football message board isn't the best place to have these discussions. But it does get frustratingly repetitive for me so when I don't feel like repeating something for the Xth time I try to steer the conversation to something new that gets interpreted as a straw man. But it's fine. I'm happy to have these discussions somewhere more structured and organized if there is interest. Or not. Up to you. But it shouldn't be here.

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z

— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024

The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.

---

Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.

---

This is not true.

---

It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e

The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.

But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.

And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.

---

Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.

---

I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.

That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.

I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.

---

You lost the plot again.

My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .

---

You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.

See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.

---

I will try to summarize:

bear2024 - look, even the US government is investing in bitcoin.

calbear93 - i think the US government's holding reflects not an investment but recovery of bitcoin paid by private entities to cyber threat actors

edwinbear - you are wrong.

calbear93 - you are saying that the government actually invests instead of holding recoveries?

edwinbear- threat actors don't receive bitcoin. only dumb criminals ask for bitcoin since bitcoin is traceable

calbear93 - umm...there is a whole service provided by ransomware negotiators on doing OFAC diligence on bitcoin wallets to make sure it does not violate sanction laws, and they do spot trading because all ransomware threat actors ask for bitcoin. so, how I was wrong that the government is not investing in bitcoin but holding recovered bitcoin.

edwinbear - it's not bitcoin's fault that criminals use bitcoin.

the reason it was a strawman by you is that I never blamed bitcoin for being used by criminals. i just stated that the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin but is instead holding what they recovered. you said i was wrong, and yet you never proved why I am wrong but instead went off on a strawman argument that it's not bitcoin's fault that it is used by criminals.

so, i am sure you feel frustrated, but clearly you can see why your last post was a strawman argument against something I never claimed.

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z

— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024

The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.

---

Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.

---

This is not true.

---

It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e

The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.

But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.

And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.

---

Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.

---

I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.

That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.

I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.

---

You lost the plot again.

My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .

---

You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.

See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.

---

I will try to summarize:

bear2024 - look, even the US government is investing in bitcoin.

calbear93 - i think the US government's holding reflects not an investment but recovery of bitcoin paid by private entities to cyber threat actors

edwinbear - you are wrong.

calbear93 - you are saying that the government actually invests instead of holding recoveries?

edwinbear- threat actors don't receive bitcoin. only dumb criminals ask for bitcoin since bitcoin is traceable

calbear93 - umm...there is a whole service provided by ransomware negotiators on doing OFAC diligence on bitcoin wallets to make sure it does not violate sanction laws, and they do spot trading because all ransomware threat actors ask for bitcoin. so, how I was wrong that the government is not investing in bitcoin but holding recovered bitcoin.

edwinbear - it's not bitcoin's fault that criminals use bitcoin.

the reason it was a strawman by you is that I never blamed bitcoin for being used by criminals. i just stated that the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin but is instead holding what they recovered. you said i was wrong, and yet you never proved why I am wrong but instead went off on a strawman argument that it's not bitcoin's fault that it is used by criminals.

so, i am sure you feel frustrated, but clearly you can see why your last post was a strawman argument against something I never claimed.

---

This is so disingenuous. You are cherry picking parts of sentences across different people to make yourself look good at others' expense. I can do that too.

Calbear93 - Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors.

Edwinbear - This is not true --> https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e

Calbear93 - But what about that thing about the US investing that someone else said that I'm now saying you're saying? GOTCHA! Straw man!!! I'm soooo smart! The US doesn't invest! They reclaim the bitcoin from bad actors!

Edwinbear (thinking) - Wouldn't the US being able to recover that ransomed bitcoin he talks about be evidence that using bitcoin for illicit activities is traceable and stupid like I said because the US was able to recover in the first place?

This is the crux. That is what I was referring to. I hadn't even seen bear2024's post about US investment (because they don't, or at least not publicly, but other governments do, but you attributed that statement to me).

You don't care about the truth. All you care about is "getting" people and scoring internet points.

And to summarize this interaction into a script that is obviously designed to make you look good while making me look stupid is horrible, given that I've tried to be respectful and informative in everything I've posted. Why are you making fun of someone who hasn't made fun of you at all? Does it make you feel good?

You're kind of a sh !t person.

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z

— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024

The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.

---

Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.

---

This is not true.

---

It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e

The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.

But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.

And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.

---

Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.

---

I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.

That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.

I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.

---

You lost the plot again.

My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .

---

You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.

See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.

---

I will try to summarize:

bear2024 - look, even the US government is investing in bitcoin.

calbear93 - i think the US government's holding reflects not an investment but recovery of bitcoin paid by private entities to cyber threat actors

edwinbear - you are wrong.

calbear93 - you are saying that the government actually invests instead of holding recoveries?

edwinbear- threat actors don't receive bitcoin. only dumb criminals ask for bitcoin since bitcoin is traceable

calbear93 - umm...there is a whole service provided by ransomware negotiators on doing OFAC diligence on bitcoin wallets to make sure it does not violate sanction laws, and they do spot trading because all ransomware threat actors ask for bitcoin. so, how I was wrong that the government is not investing in bitcoin but holding recovered bitcoin.

edwinbear - it's not bitcoin's fault that criminals use bitcoin.

the reason it was a strawman by you is that I never blamed bitcoin for being used by criminals. i just stated that the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin but is instead holding what they recovered. you said i was wrong, and yet you never proved why I am wrong but instead went off on a strawman argument that it's not bitcoin's fault that it is used by criminals.

so, i am sure you feel frustrated, but clearly you can see why your last post was a strawman argument against something I never claimed.

---

This is so disingenuous. You are cherry picking parts of sentences across different people to make yourself look good at others' expense. I can do that too.

Calbear93 - Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors.

Edwinbear - This is not true --> https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e

Calbear93 - But what about that thing about the US investing that someone else said that I'm now saying you're saying? GOTCHA! Straw man!!! I'm soooo smart! The US doesn't invest! They reclaim the bitcoin from bad actors!

Edwinbear (thinking) - Wouldn't the US being able to recover that ransomed bitcoin he talks about be evidence that using bitcoin for illicit activities is traceable and stupid like I said because the US was able to recover in the first place?

This is the crux. That is what I was referring to. I hadn't even seen bear2024's post about US investment (because they don't, or at least not publicly, but other governments do, but you attributed that statement to me).

You don't care about the truth. All you care about is "getting" people and scoring internet points.

And to summarize this interaction into a script that is obviously designed to make you look good while making me look stupid is horrible, given that I've tried to be respectful and informative in everything I've posted. Why are you making fun of someone who hasn't made fun of you at all? Does it make you feel good?

You're kind of a sh !t person.

---

You are way too sensitive about this.

The logical fail from you is that, just because bitcoin is not a safe haven does not mean that bitcoin is not almost the exclusive form of payment demanded by threat actors. You have shown no evidence to contradict my statement that bitcoin is the preferred form of payment by threat actors. I realize it is not a safe haven. That is why I stated the bitcoin held by the federal government is bitcoin recovered from threat actors.

Marsh, an insurance broker, including ransomware insurance, identified bitcoin as the form of payment for 98% of the ransomware payments. The other 2% of the form of payment are other crypto. I was just stating a fact and you went off on defending the moral character of bitcoin when no one indicated otherwise.

https://www.marsh.com/us/services/cyber-risk/insights/ransomware-paying-cyber-extortion-demands-in-cryptocurrency.html

Don't know why you are so emotionally hurt by an inferred attack on bitcoin that I never implied.

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Fun Fact: US gov holds 210,392 $BTC, with a 2.4x unrealized profit, and hasn't sold any #Bitcoin since July 2023. pic.twitter.com/GIvQpL3j5Z

— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) March 15, 2024

The U.S. government owns 1% of all bitcoins and appears to be hodling.

---

Since Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors, these are Bitcoin wallets taken back from ransom payments to Russian-based threat actors. They are not investments, and they are evidence.

---

This is not true.

---

It's not? I have personally been involved in a few ransomware negotiation either as a GC or updated as a member of the board. And they all ask for pay in the form of bitcoin wallet. And in one, the FBI got back and recouped partial. What about is not true? And based on what experience from you?

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e

The truth is, the transparency of its ledger makes bitcoin a poor choice for criminals. Many bad actors who demanded bitcoin, thinking that it was anonymous, have been caught. Bitcoin is NOT anonymous. Only DUMB criminals would use bitcoin.

But also, what makes money a good money is its neutrality. Gold wouldn't be gold if a criminal could not also hold it in his/her hand. This is where the meme phrase "bitcoin is for your enemies" comes from, which is to highlight that you can't have censorship-resistant money if people you don't like or don't agree with you couldn't also use its censorship-resistant properties. Bitcoin is just a thing people can use, or not use. This goes back to whether you also hate knives or cars because criminals can use them to stab or as getaway vehicles.

And you act like criminals, ransomware, money laundering, etc. did not exist prior to bitcoin. The currency of choice for bad actors both then and even now is NOT bitcoin. It's the dollar.

---

Are you saying that ransomware threat actors in Russia who want payment demand a bag of cash or wire transfer? You got to be joking. Yes, 100s of years ago, bags of cash was exchanged but ransomware did not exist back then because internet did not exist. The exchange of USD to bitcoin and verifying that the threat actors actor is not a sanctioned entity and that the bitcoin wallet is valid are actual and fundamental services provided by ransomware negotiators because all settlement of ransomware are by bitcoin. Please provide evidence that justifies that my statement that ransomware settlements are settled with bitcoin is false.

---

I'm saying that bitcoin, like any technology or financial system, is just a tool. These same ransomware attacks presumably also use the internet, correct? Why aren't you blaming the internet? The internet itself facilitates WAY more illegal activities than bitcoin. 30 years ago people were saying the exact same things about the internet, that it was a den of thieves and perverts. It was the new thing that allowed proliferation of porno and bad things. Bitcoin is now that thing. In the future, you would blame whatever new thing for the new bad thing.

That bitcoin may be used in ransomware is not the point. ANY tool can be used to do something bad. Knives can stab, cars can help thieves escape, boats can smuggle, etc. The question is, does the good outweigh the bad? Bitcoin has use cases that go far beyond illicit transactions. It enables financial inclusion for unbanked populations, offers an alternative to unstable fiat currencies, and provides innovative opportunities in financial technologies and soon digital contracts. Bitcoin's good FAR outweighs any bad.

I think your focus on tools vs intent is misplaced. There will always be bank robbers, jewelry store thieves, Wal Mart shoplifters, porch pirates, money launderers, crooked politicians, etc. and they will all use a myriad of tools (cars, crowbars, mobile phones, the internet, listening devices, etc.) to accomplish their illicit deeds. Honeypots will always be a target irrespective of whether bitcoin exists or not. Due to its honeypot of client owned bitcoin, no company is subject to more constant hacking attempts than Coinbase, but they seem to be doing fine. If your company is constantly falling victim to ransomware, maybe it's time to reevaluate its own operational security.

---

You lost the plot again.

My post was a response to an implication that the government invests in bitcoin. I stated that instead of the government investing in bitcoin, their holding had to do with recovered bitcoin from ransomware threat actor. You said I was wrong. What is this strawman argument you just posted? The entire discussion is right there for you to review again. .

---

You know, every response I get seems to be some accusation of me putting up strawmen or losing the plot or some other implication I'm just some brainwashed idiot. I'm done going in circles. I've written so much about bitcoin not just in this thread but in past threads going back years that you've also responded to. The discussion is there for YOU to review again. Or not. I have zero financial incentive to convince you. I'm just trying to keep things intellectually honest.

See ya again in a few years @ $500K bitcoin.

---

I will try to summarize:

bear2024 - look, even the US government is investing in bitcoin.

calbear93 - i think the US government's holding reflects not an investment but recovery of bitcoin paid by private entities to cyber threat actors

edwinbear - you are wrong.

calbear93 - you are saying that the government actually invests instead of holding recoveries?

edwinbear- threat actors don't receive bitcoin. only dumb criminals ask for bitcoin since bitcoin is traceable

calbear93 - umm...there is a whole service provided by ransomware negotiators on doing OFAC diligence on bitcoin wallets to make sure it does not violate sanction laws, and they do spot trading because all ransomware threat actors ask for bitcoin. so, how I was wrong that the government is not investing in bitcoin but holding recovered bitcoin.

edwinbear - it's not bitcoin's fault that criminals use bitcoin.

the reason it was a strawman by you is that I never blamed bitcoin for being used by criminals. i just stated that the US government is not actively investing in bitcoin but is instead holding what they recovered. you said i was wrong, and yet you never proved why I am wrong but instead went off on a strawman argument that it's not bitcoin's fault that it is used by criminals.

so, i am sure you feel frustrated, but clearly you can see why your last post was a strawman argument against something I never claimed.

---

This is so disingenuous. You are cherry picking parts of sentences across different people to make yourself look good at others' expense. I can do that too.

Calbear93 - Bitcoin is the preferred form of payment of ransom from hostile actors.

Edwinbear - This is not true --> https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/08/17/bitcoin-welcomes-all-but-its-no-haven-for-the-naive-criminal/?sh=397d6c403f0e

Calbear93 - But what about that thing about the US investing that someone else said that I'm now saying you're saying? GOTCHA! Straw man!!! I'm soooo smart! The US doesn't invest! They reclaim the bitcoin from bad actors!

Edwinbear (thinking) - Wouldn't the US being able to recover that ransomed bitcoin he talks about be evidence that using bitcoin for illicit activities is traceable and stupid like I said because the US was able to recover in the first place?

This is the crux. That is what I was referring to. I hadn't even seen bear2024's post about US investment (because they don't, or at least not publicly, but other governments do, but you attributed that statement to me).

You don't care about the truth. All you care about is "getting" people and scoring internet points.

And to summarize this interaction into a script that is obviously designed to make you look good while making me look stupid is horrible, given that I've tried to be respectful and informative in everything I've posted. Why are you making fun of someone who hasn't made fun of you at all? Does it make you feel good?

You're kind of a sh !t person.

---

You are way too sensitive about this.

The logical fail from you is that, just because bitcoin is not a safe haven does not mean that bitcoin is not almost the exclusive form of payment demanded by threat actors. You have shown no evidence to contradict my statement that bitcoin is the preferred form of payment by threat actors. I realize it is not a safe haven. That is why I stated the bitcoin held by the federal government is bitcoin recovered from threat actors.

Marsh, an insurance broker, including ransomware insurance, identified bitcoin as the form of payment for 98% of the ransomware payments. The other 2% of the form of payment are other crypto. I was just stating a fact and you went off on defending the moral character of bitcoin when no one indicated otherwise.

https://www.marsh.com/us/services/cyber-risk/insights/ransomware-paying-cyber-extortion-demands-in-cryptocurrency.html

Don't know why you are so emotionally hurt by an inferred attack on bitcoin that I never implied.

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-false-narrative-of-bitcoins-role-in-illicit-activity/?sh=4d002c6f3432

https://www.cato.org/blog/overstating-crypto-crime-wont-lead-sound-policy

https://www.coindesk.com/video/crypto-crime-illicit-activity-represents-under-05percent-of-on-chain-activity-in-2023/

YOUR logical fail is not recognizing that what makes a good money good is its neutrality. That people you don't like could ALSO use it. Bad people can use gold the same way good people can use gold. Are you saying gold is bad? That it's not useful?

The US dollar is inherently political. If you disagree with the US government, they can turn your wealth off (freeze accounts, cancel treasury reserves, debase away its purchasing power, etc.). You seem to think this is a good thing. I do not. I think this is a very bad, very dystopian thing. There needs to be a separation of money and state just like there is with church and state.

And if you don't think that's a good thing, then you must accept that a money that no person/org/gov can "turn off" or manipulate can also be used by "bad" people you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways. This means, yes, bad people can use it for ransoms. I get the feeling you're again going to try to turn around this statement on me, but the reality is, the fact that bitcoin CAN be used for ransoms is actually a feature, not a bug.

I am not emotional about this. But your attempt to lampoon me for internet laughs feels personal.

How about we just end with this then: One question and one possible followup.

As a thought experiment, answer this question:

What would bitcoin have to do, or what would it have to become, for you to admit that you were wrong about it. Is it at a certain price? At a certain adoption level? What is that milestone in your mind where you would change your mind?

And if there is a certain milestone in which you would change your mind, unless you think achieving such a milestone realistically happens overnight, how with everything that has happened in bitcoin's history to date does it NOT show a clear trend towards achieving that milestone?

And if there is NOTHING that bitcoin can do that would change your mind, then you're just never going to change your mind, and there's no reason to keep going.