We've banned this account for posting flamewar comments and using HN primarily for ideological battle. Those things are against the site guidelines because (a) they are not what this site is for, and (b) they destroy what it is for—regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against.
You seem to share an anti-crytpo outlook and a history of musings on Haskell with the OP. Are you related in some way? You even have another comment [0] defending him. Crying foul.
"These attacks" are defined as "automated exploitation of computer networks that aims to extract cash from the owner of that network" and "cryptocurrency" is "the singular reason" why "these attacks" are "even possible."
Later on the author shamelessly tries to shift that definition to "modern ransomware" (the same trick you're attempting here).
Why do they need to resort to that? Because they're wrong.
I agree, the author contradicts themselves immediately. Cryptocurrency is not the "singular" reason, and it is not why these attacks are even "possible."
The hypothetical they picked might not work. The methods that ransomware was using for decades to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars did, and will continue to work.
> The singular reason why these attacks are even possible is due entirely to rise of cryptocurrency. And is entirely enabled by this one technology, it could not exist otherwise.
Huh, cryptocurrency existed in 1989, when the first ransomware was active? Did the author even google the word "ransomware?"
Wire transfers and all types of pre-paid voucher services were used well before cryptocurrencies were even created.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html