I'd probably bet that most criminals just use standard money rather than crypto

The ratio of legitimate to illegitimate use of traditional currencies is way different than the ratio for cryptocurrencies. Of course the total number is smaller, since the total number of cryptocurrency users in general is smaller.

The point is that there is massive legitimate use of traditional currencies, which makes them a benefit despite the illegitimate uses. The same is just not true for cryptocurrencies.

Also, traditional currencies have many, many safeguards against illegitimate use. Cryptocurrencies are specifically designed to prevent those safeguards.

There is a good reason that ransomware only took off once cryptocurrencies became available.

> legitimate use

It is "legitimate" to use a cryptocurrency to buy pot. It may not be legal, depending on your jurisdiction; but "illegitimate" is a fuzzy word, expressing some kind of subjective disapproval.

I personally think it's illegitimate to criminalise drug use. But that's just a subjective, personal opinion.

I am not talking about buying pot.

> There is a good reason that ransomware only took off once cryptocurrencies became available.

What? The peak of ransomwares was during the 2000s.

What on earth are you even talking about.

forget about it; my comment is wrong.

I'm still waiting for the "Iranian government moves to crypto to get around OFAC" articles. If there's one group of people who'd benefit from sanctions-resistant money it's them.

There was that one Ethereum(?) dude who got in trouble for talking to North Korea about cryptocurrency stuff.

Virgil Griffith, possibly the dumbest smart man alive. Asks the state department if he can go to North Korea to talk about cryptocurrency, gets told "no, of course not", somehow decides to go anyway, talks about evading sanctions with cryptocurrencies, and is finally greatly surprised when he gets arrested.