That's not really an amount of money to dodge much of anything at all.
But 1) the article does not provide any real evidence to support for this theory, 2) it's not a sufficient amount to be a viable strategy, and 3) the evidence even linking the thefts to NK sounds somewhere between non-existent and very flimsy.
When the FireEye report's leading point states: "...there are no clear indications of North Korean involvement", it's not good support for such a broad statement as the title of the article.
Again, it's definitely possible, but too little information appears to be available to draw this conclusion.
The pundits-in-the-know often semi-seriously state they expect 1 BTC to rise to $100,000 USD within 10 years - looking at the past 5 years that's not an unreasonable statement to make. This is based on BTC's deflationary nature, and its increasing prevelance in the world. Imagine if you owned one 28,000,000th of the Internet economy - that would still be a lot of money. What if you owned 10x or 100x of that? In BTC it's still an amount affordable by a large organisation or nation state, but in 10 years' time it would be like having your own Fort Knox.
How much it extrapolates in 20 years then? 100 million?
Which I don't think is that unreasonable if you're evaluating it as a store of value.
Is this where "if we only get 1% of the market we'll all be billionaires" goes to summer?
“You’re wasting your time with Bitcoin! Virtual currency, where it’s called a bitcoin vs. a U.S. dollar, that’s going to be stopped,” said Dimon. “No government will ever support a virtual currency that goes around borders and doesn’t have the same controls. It’s not going to happen.”
the article claims they can steal btc from any wallet. thats preposterous and if they could do that, stealing btc would be the least of my worries because that would prove several cryptography building blocks might be obsolete.
Getting funds to agents in foreign territory is particularly easy if you're doing this.
My impression was that they aren't electrified because it isn't a national priority for them to be, not because they lacked the capable to develop the infrastructure.
A lot of things need to line up to make the unit cost of mining bitcoin work.
It's in their interests to keep the people alive yet stagnant.
Serious question: If you're an elite NK party member with your own private home theatre set-up, who do you call when your Plex server stops working?
They certainly don't devote enough capacity to do that, but that could be in part priorities for use.
And they have to ask themselves that question for every new kilowatt of generating power that they install.
There have been a series of articles in a specific type of media lately trying to link NK or China or Russia with Bitcoin and blockchain technologies.
It reeks of fear. To me this means that Bitcoin is winning.
1. Please don't tell me that btc is not anonymous; the fact that I can trace transaction histories is irrelevant, since I still need to deanonymize the initial address.
I would compate this mislabeling to claiming that btc is insecure because of the mt. Gox hack; the fact that you can steal bitcoin's from people doesn't mean that bitcoins are insecure. Similarly, the fact that I can trace your transaction trail does not mean that your transactions themselves weren't fully anonymous.
In this case, the conventional definition of anonymous is less useful than domain-specific definition of anonymity, since different currencies have different levels of anonymity. Recent HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14672691
I didnt even know that pseudonymous was a word until today, thank you.