On May 12 the WannaCry attack started in Europe. Using a malware software that exploited flaws in Windows security that was leaked from the NSA, the malware spread like wildfire, especially on May 15. Soon after the large spread on the 15th, a web researcher was able to drastically slow the attacks by discovering a kill switch. The malware locked a user out of their computer and demanded money payable in Bitcoin in order to unlock. Despite the quickness in slowing the attack, the attackers received thousands of dollars in Bitcoin.

The attack sparked renewed media interest in Bitcoin, arguably which helped spark the massive increase in price as I outline in a previous article, but it also caused many to question whether Bitcoin is too easy for criminals to use to receive their ill-gotten gains. An example of this is a strongly worded letter in Financial Times. The author argues that states work hard to limit illegal activity with state backed money, such as the EU outlawing 500 Euro bills, but do nothing to stop Bitcoin. She argues that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have only allowed crime to grow, and have produced nothing else productive.

Now of course that is nonsense. Bitcoin shouldn’t be made illegal by nations just because it is used by criminals, just as cars or dollar bills shouldn’t be made illegal because they are used by criminals. Nevertheless, there is a point to be made that the anonymity of Bitcoin makes it a favorite among criminals. In fact, there has been an increase in ransomware attacks in recent years, as outlined in the graph below.

Arguably, Bitcoin has helped ransomware attacks, though the degree that Bitcoin can be blamed is up for debate. Internet and computer security is extremely weak, while hackers have been getting much more sophisticated, so it would make sense that attacks would rise. In addition, Bitcoin is not completely untrackable. Although there is no name attached to Bitcoin wallets, the wallets themselves, and transactions between wallets, are view-able to the public. This gives law enforcement the ability to track transactions and be able to make it easier to trace Bitcoin back to its owner, as was done in 2013 to arrest one of the largest drug markets that used Bitcoin. An interesting thing to note is that the WannaCry attackers haven’t removed the Bitcoin from the three wallets. This is likely because the attackers haven’t figured out how to launder the Bitcoin. Law enforcement would have an easier time of tracking down the perpetrators if the Bitcoin was moved or turned into another currency.

The WannaCry attack shows on a large scale one of the negatives of Bitcoin, its ability to be used by criminals to keep some anonymity in their illegal activities. Yet, Bitcoin still allows the movement of funds to be viewed by the public, so the cryptocurrency is not completely at the mercy of criminals. Bitcoin should be viewed as other currencies by states, they should attempt to limit illegal uses but not at the detriment of the legal users.