by: Frieren

Stopping Ransomware is trivial if governments knew where the money goes. But cryptocurrencies and lax capital control pushed by the uber-rich makes it impossible.<p>The technology is there and it is used to track the average citizens every move. But when it comes to rich people then the money goes and comes without control (and without taxation).<p>Cryptocurrencies are a great solution to enable criminal activity. Their only use and highly appreciated by terrorists, criminals and dictatorial governments around the world.

4/14/2026, 12:37:50 PM

by: alopha

The idea that the spending needs to grow linearly with the growth is a damning indictment of the mindset of the vast ineffectual mess that is the cybersecurity industry.

4/14/2026, 10:43:56 AM

by: CoastalCoder

It seems obvious to me that the only real solution is to penalize the <i>payment</i> of ransoms. For the same reasons one doesn&#x27;t negotiate with terrorists.<p>Is there some reason to believe that this isn&#x27;t the best approach? And if not, then any theories as to why it hasn&#x27;t been enacted?

4/14/2026, 10:41:08 AM

by: everdrive

If ransomware spending must scale directly with ransomware attacks then I don&#x27;t see how companies could possibly keep up with the spending. A lot of the &quot;gaps&quot; in cybersecurity are essentially spending problems. Companies want to spend as little on it as they can.

4/14/2026, 12:00:42 PM

by: shrubble

I don&#x27;t think there is a reasonable correlation, since stopping ransomware doesn&#x27;t require that much of an increase in spending; it&#x27;s a culture thing more than a money thing.

4/14/2026, 11:34:46 AM

by: _tk_

I think this article mostly shows that publicly announcing a successful ransoming of a company is now more popular than a couple years back.

4/14/2026, 10:52:06 AM

by:

4/14/2026, 11:02:53 AM

by: CodeCompost

Thanks, Satoshi

4/14/2026, 10:57:35 AM