Key Post Bitcoin is a clearly identifiable economic bubble

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,676
You can look at what percentage of darkweb payments are conducted via Bitcoin.
OK, so we likely agree that Bitcoin use on the dark web is very significant and growing, but also that the overall volume of Bitcoin exchanged on there isn't a significant number in the grand scheme of worldwide crime or Bitcoin volume. The primary use of bitcoin by a long margin remains speculation.

As regards the link above to the Chainalysis blog post, Chainalysis don't have any business to pursue without talking up illicit use.
Ah, talking up elicit use might get them some headlines, but that's clearly not how they make money. Are you suggesting they are manipulating public blockchain data for their own ends? If so, why is no one calling them on it? The source data is publicly available.
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
605
OK, so we likely agree that Bitcoin use on the dark web is very significant and growing, but also that the overall volume of Bitcoin exchanged on there isn't a significant number in the grand scheme of worldwide crime or Bitcoin volume. The primary use of bitcoin by a long margin remains speculation.
I think I was pretty clear but I'll restate again;

- Criminals have a proven history of being the earliest of adopters of new tech. Why should Bitcoin be any different?
- The Bitcoin eco-system has expanded considerably in recent years...ergo, any darkweb use in the early days when compared with today makes for an ever decreasing proportion of activity.
- The overwhelming majority of money laundering and illicit payments are carried out via the conventional banking system and cash.
 
Last edited:

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,676
Criminals have a proven history of being the earliest of adopters of new tech. Why should Bitcoin be any different?
Really? So they were big in the early days of SnapChat and Insta? Did they sway the video cassette battle in favour of VHS? Are they using VR to plan burglaries?
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
605
Really? So they were big in the early days of SnapChat and Insta? Did they sway the video cassette battle in favour of VHS? Are they using VR to plan burglaries?
Right back at ye....Snapchat and Insta are the only developments in tech over the years that you're familiar with?
Having said that, here are some Instagram scams. And as regards Snapchat, here ye go -> Snapchat has become a haven for child predators
I didn't delve into that much - that's via a cursory search.

To my point that criminals are early adopters of tech and tend to exploit it in its early days =>
How Criminals Use New Technology - an article in Politico over 10 years before the concept of Bitcoin emerged.
Hacking through the years.

From the FT: "Criminals are the true early adopters." "Technology is awesome, our future is going to be amazing, but it’s not going to come for free.”

One more..."Criminals have long demonstrated that they are early adopters of new technologies "
 
Last edited:

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,676
From the FT: "Criminals are the true early adopters." "Technology is awesome, our future is going to be amazing, but it’s not going to come for free.”
Haha! Mid '90s is early adoption of PCs now!

The second article is a hypothesis of what might happen in relation to the exploitation of AI. Again, AI has been around a long time.
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
605
Haha! Mid '90s is early adoption of PCs now!

The second article is a hypothesis of what might happen in relation to the exploitation of AI. Again, AI has been around a long time.
You seem to be sledging the Financial Times article in both cases. As regards adoption of PC's, see this timeline of PC sales. They started to be shipped in the 1990's. Other than that, you're making my point for me. It doesn't say that criminals were not early adopters before that point. They explicitly state that they are early adopters of new tech.

As regards mention of AI, it's mentioned once in the FT article - alongside other technologies. "Criminals are the true early adopters, says Mr Goodman. Synthetic biology, drones, artificial intelligence: the smart crooks are already on to it. “These people are really clever . . . innovating technologies for fraud, financial gain or personal vendetta,” he says."

You can go up against all of these people all you want. It doesn't disprove a prevailing professional view that criminals are early adopters of technology. I know that's a bit irksome for you as it doesn't fit your narrative.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,676
You seem to be sledging the Financial Times article in both cases. As regards adoption of PC's, see this timeline of PC sales. They started to be shipped in the 1990's.
You are re-writing history if you think PCs only arrived in the '90s. The article talks about the mid-'90s, by which time I was on my third, and I wasn't an early adopter.

As regards mention of AI, it's mentioned once in the FT article
What's a different FT article got to do with it? In the article I was clearly talking about, the one you linked, is pretty much focused on AI!

It doesn't disprove a prevailing professional view that criminals are early adopters of technology.
I haven't seen any evidence that this is a prevailing view.
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
605
You are re-writing history if you think PCs only arrived in the '90s. The article talks about the mid-'90s, by which time I was on my third, and I wasn't an early adopter.
I didn't say that they 'just arrived' in the 90s. I don't know how you think this is of any relevance to this discussion in any event. The article doesn't claim that criminals were not adopters of technology at an earlier stage - it explicitly states that they were and are early adopters of tech. Go write to the Financial Times and dispute it with them.

What's a different FT article got to do with it? In the article I was clearly talking about, the one you linked, is pretty much focused on AI!
I linked to a number of articles. Feel free to point out specifically which you are referring to.
I haven't seen any evidence that this is a prevailing view.
Ok, so a cursory google search throws up various instances of people in tech and law enforcement claiming that criminals are early adopters of tech. You dispute that. Fair enough....everyone can make you their own minds weighing those factors up.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,676
I didn't say that they 'just arrived' in the 90s.
They started to be shipped in the 1990's.
So they didn't just arrive but they only started to be shipped in the '90s???

I linked to a number of articles. Feel free to point out specifically which you are referring to.
I did. I don't understand why you referred back to the first article to try counter a point I explicitly stated was related to the second one. made
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
605
So they didn't just arrive but they only started to be shipped in the '90s???
I have no idea where you're going with this or what the relevance is. The article clearly states that criminals are early adopters of technology. It doesn't state that they became early adopters of tech in the 90s. You seem to be going down some irrelevant cul-de-sac.

I did. I don't understand why you referred back to the first article to try counter a point I explicitly stated was related to the second one. made
Lets short circuit this rabbit hole. A cursory google search threw up a number of policing and tech professionals who are of the view that criminals are early adopters of tech. You don't agree - and you're entirely welcome to hold a different view.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,676
I have no idea where you're going with this or what the relevance is.
You claim PCs started shipping in the '90s. That is clearly incorrect.

Your earlier claim is that criminals are early adopters of technology. The article you chose to back up your claim suggests the mid'90s users of PCs were early adopters.

I've spent my entire career working in technology, and I have seen no evidence that criminals are significantly early adopters of technology. In most cases, they really only adopt technology around the time of mass adoption as prices plummet and availability is widespread.
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
605
You claim PCs started shipping in the '90s. That is clearly incorrect.
Pure tedium. I presented data that shows that they started to be shipped in volume in the 90s. So what?

Your earlier claim is that criminals are early adopters of technology. The article you chose to back up your claim suggests the mid'90s users of PCs were early adopters.
I backed up my claim with links to a number of articles on the topic that explicitly stated that criminals are early adopters of technology. You are rounding your criticism on the Financial Times article specifically. Where in the article is it stated that mid 90s users were early adopters?

I've spent my entire career working in technology, and I have seen no evidence that criminals are significantly early adopters of technology. In most cases, they really only adopt technology around the time of mass adoption as prices plummet and availability is widespread.
Have you worked in law enforcement? Your view differs from that of several experts that have worked at the intersection of where technology meets criminality. You are entitled to your own view - as is everyone else.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,676
Pure tedium. I presented data that shows that they started to be shipped in volume in the 90s. So what?
Can't admit you're wrong? You know that volume shipping means it's mass market and no longer early adoption, right?
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
605
Can't admit you're wrong? You know that volume shipping means it's mass market and no longer early adoption, right?
YOU can't help yourself but to cling to this narrative that supports your world view. I stated a couple of times that focusing on when PCs shipped was not relevant to this conversation. You claim that the FT is wrong - where specifically are they wrong? Where did they say that mid 90s users were early adopters?

I've given us both an 'out' of this on a number of occasions - i.e. that you hold an opinion and that opinion is in conflict with a number of people that have worked at the intersection of crime and tech. You don't have to agree - everyone can make their own minds up but in these discussions, it seems that's not enough.
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
605
Then why bring it up?
I didn't - you are the one that homed in on that. I provided links to articles where it was expressly stated that criminals are early adopters of tech. That includes the Financial Times article that you take issue with. But I guess they're all wrong and you're right...
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,676
I didn't - you are the one that homed in on that. I provided links to articles where it was expressly stated that criminals are early adopters of tech.
You did, but the primary example in the FT link you provided suggests that the mid '90's was early adoption of PCs. That is patently untrue, so I question the subject in that report talking about early adopters of PCs in the mid-'90s timeframe. I'm sure the FT themselves are better versed in PC and computer crime history.

Their other examples are AI and drones. Artificial intelligence as we know it today dates back to the 1950s, the articles you posted suggested what criminals might use it for in the future, but gave no examples of how it has been used in the past or at present. Gartner's Cybersecurity conference last year had a session on AI, again, their focus was solely on how it might be exploited in the future, they had no examples of it being exploited in the wild, the closest they had was an example of machine learning tools beahing human performance on Captchas, but that's a different animal.

Likewise, drones have evolved from the first unmanned aircraft in the 1910s. You'll be hard pressed to find reports of criminal use prior to the mid-2010s when they were first used by the Mexican cartels to transport drugs across the border. The first reported use there was 8 years after the licensing of commercial drones in the US, and 4 years after Parrot released the AR drone to the mass market. Apart from the cartels with their massive resources, pretty much all other criminal use of drones I see reported makes use of mass-produced consumer drones.

It also mentions synthetic biology, but I'm no biologist.
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
605
Eh, I didn't - as has already been pointed out to you.
but the primary example in the FT link you provided suggests that the mid '90's was early adoption of PCs.
Where did they say that mid 90s users were early adopters?
I'm sure the FT themselves are better versed in PC and computer crime history.
I'm sure you know better than those implicated in all articles cited and so many more I could cite.
 
Top