You can look at what percentage of darkweb payments are conducted via Bitcoin.
As regards the link above to the Chainalysis blog post, Chainalysis don't have any business to pursue without talking up illicit use.
The primary use of bitcoin by a long margin remains speculation.
I think I was pretty clear but I'll restate again;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.
Speculation is not a use of a medium of exchange.
It might be a rationale for holding it, but it is not a use.
Criminals have a proven history of being the earliest of adopters of new tech. Why should Bitcoin be any different?
Right back at ye....Snapchat and Insta are the only developments in tech over the years that you're familiar with?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?
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.”
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.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.
As regards mention of AI, it's mentioned once in the FT article
It doesn't disprove a prevailing professional view that criminals are early adopters of technology.
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.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 linked to a number of articles. Feel free to point out specifically which you are referring to.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!
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.I haven't seen any evidence that this is a prevailing view.
I didn't say that they 'just arrived' in the 90s.
They started to be shipped in the 1990's.
I linked to a number of articles. Feel free to point out specifically which you are referring to.
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.So they didn't just arrive but they only started to be shipped in the '90s???
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.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
I have no idea where you're going with this or what the relevance is.
Pure tedium. I presented data that shows that they started to be shipped in volume in the 90s. So what?You claim PCs started shipping in the '90s. That is clearly incorrect.
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?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.
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.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.
Pure tedium. I presented data that shows that they started to be shipped in volume in the 90s. So what?
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?Can't admit you're wrong? You know that volume shipping means it's mass market and no longer early adoption, right?
I stated a couple of times that focusing on when PCs shipped was not relevant to this conversation.
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...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.
Eh, I didn't - as has already been pointed out to you.You did,
Where did they say that mid 90s users were early adopters?but the primary example in the FT link you provided suggests that the mid '90's was early adoption of PCs.
I'm sure you know better than those implicated in all articles cited and so many more I could cite.I'm sure the FT themselves are better versed in PC and computer crime history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?