>It's not that there aren't solutions to that too, and yes I'd hope a big organization would cover it, but afaik it's not as easy as I wish it was. I don't think the challenge of malicious for-profit actors should be trivialized in the way you seem to have been doing.
Yes, it's difficult. Such is the world we live in. It doesn't make sense to blame cryptocurrencies for that, and not the people who didn't do their job. The existence of cryptocurrencies and of ransomware is something that was outside of their control. Their backup policy wasn't.
>And the value function of computers vs crypto is astronomical, I don't think it's reasonable to equate the two as you originally did either.
You misunderstood my point. That, in balance, computers are much more valuable than cryptocurrencies is a matter of opinion (which I agree with). A Luddite could argue that if the hospital hadn't been using computers for billing, the attack would have been impossible, and could have a point that using computers instead of paper ultimately created more problems than it solved. All that changes is that the technology being criticized was computers rather than cryptocurrencies. But both arguments miss the point that neither computers nor cryptocurrencies are the problem, but rather how they're used.
>least because cryptocurrencies are impossible without computers which means by definition any value they offer is a subset of the value of computers.
Oh. In that case the energy waste, the scams, the ransomware, etc. are not harms arising from cryptocurrencies, but merely a special case of the harm arising from computers. I mean, I was keeping the two disconnected in favor of computers, but if you want to lump them together then by all means do so.
Yes, it's difficult. Such is the world we live in. It doesn't make sense to blame cryptocurrencies for that, and not the people who didn't do their job. The existence of cryptocurrencies and of ransomware is something that was outside of their control. Their backup policy wasn't.
>And the value function of computers vs crypto is astronomical, I don't think it's reasonable to equate the two as you originally did either.
You misunderstood my point. That, in balance, computers are much more valuable than cryptocurrencies is a matter of opinion (which I agree with). A Luddite could argue that if the hospital hadn't been using computers for billing, the attack would have been impossible, and could have a point that using computers instead of paper ultimately created more problems than it solved. All that changes is that the technology being criticized was computers rather than cryptocurrencies. But both arguments miss the point that neither computers nor cryptocurrencies are the problem, but rather how they're used.