We have a T Rex

I think you're overgeneralizing their statement.

> I got news for you. Unlike license violations where the company pressures it's workers to break the law and the employee has no benefit, in the case of ransomware payments the employees are usually at fault

I guess I don't understand this assumption. There are equivalents of SOX compliance across many countries and that everyone in a compliance team would be totally cool signing off on illegal activity is a little strange to assume.

I think bitcoin is a little secondary to this conversation. Someone could convert X dollars to bitcoin and it's hard to track, but just taking X dollars out of an account needs to be accounted for just as if someone took it out to cash.

Are you saying because it won't automatically be disclosed, why bother to make it illegal? Aren't most laws not automatically detectable by authorities so they open an investigation?

> those that do pay will not be stopped by any law.

Can you explain this to me? Are you saying because it's in bitcoin the government can't stop the transfer?

They used to kick people out of the church when they publicly said they were gay. They now have openly gay leadership as long as they don't have gay sex, so things do change. As the article mentions though, it's not changing the church's actual stance--just how things are run. Polygamy, for example, is no longer practiced, but a Mormon man can still be sealed to multiple women (not the other way around), so it's not really gone from their beliefs.