BITCOIN, Heists, Thefts, Hacks, Scams, and Losses

[russ_watters]

Crypto hacks are bullish, because they mean people still believe there is enough value to take the trouble

Disagree. "Bullish" means you have faith in future value prospects. Stealing crypto today is simply a recognition of the reality of today's value.

In traditional Ponzi schemes courts have gone after profits of past investors- so if you had invested in Madoff 20 years ago, doubled your money then redeemed before it blew up, you would have to return your gains to be divvied up by the court to those who lost money (which is why investors got such large recoveries from Madoff BTW). You start this with Celsius, 3 Arrows and the other scams blowing up now, it will get messy.

The crypto space is the Wild West, and there is a lot going on. So just to be clear, I don't think crypto itself a Ponzi scheme, I think crypto itself is an asset bubble. But a company offering exorbitant returns with no identifiable basis/reason is probably a Ponzi scheme, even if the company doesn't even know it.

 

[Drakkith]

What do you mean by "code is law," OS? If authorities track down crypto hackers, are they not able to return the coins stolen?

No, not always. For example, I get your account info for your exchange profile, log in, and then transfer some of your coins to my account on another exchange. I then sell those coins for USD and withdraw that money into my bank account. A week later I'm caught. Those coins that I stole may or may not even be on the 2nd exchange anymore. And there's no one to go to and say, "Hey, give these people their coins back." You can't even rollback the blockchain.

The only way to get the coins back to their rightful owners would be to catch the hackers before they sell their stolen coins AND get their wallet private keys or exchange account info. Which is doubtful.

 

[Rive]

What do you mean by "code is law," OS? If authorities track down crypto hackers, are they not able to return the coins stolen?

Part of the constraints and features in traditional banking system is there to help authorities handle illegal money. Part of the crypto, on the other hand, is exactly about removing those constraints and features, sending few hundred years worth lessons learned down the sink.

By now the exchange points where crypto meets real money are mostly abide by the old rules, but that won't affect the crypto itself. Once it's through crypto, authorities has only limited tools to do anything.

Especially that by now there are further 'services' out there to scramble the traces left.

 

[kyphysics]

No, not always. For example, I get your account info for your exchange profile, log in, and then transfer some of your coins to my account on another exchange. I then sell those coins for USD and withdraw that money into my bank account. A week later I'm caught. Those coins that I stole may or may not even be on the 2nd exchange anymore. And there's no one to go to and say, "Hey, give these people their coins back." You can't even rollback the blockchain.

The only way to get the coins back to their rightful owners would be to catch the hackers before they sell their stolen coins AND get their wallet private keys or exchange account info. Which is doubtful.

Okay...

That makes some sense. However, is there not the equivalent to FDIC insurance for crypto brokerages? Banks can insure up to $250,000 (if they are an FDIC protected member), while brokerages like Vanguard, Fidelity, etc. have an equivalent that I cannot recall the name of. I think it's up to $10 million. Lloyd's of London/England (or whatever it's called) "insures" some of these major brokerages. I don't know if they're the only "insurer," but I know they are one of them.

So, even if you're hacked at a major brokerage (I'm NOT including Robin Hood, as I don't know, but also b/c I honestly don't trust them), you can often still get reimbursed from insurance even if that hacker/criminal spent the proceeds already.

Does crypto not have such an insurer?

 

[kyphysics]

Part of the constraints and features in traditional banking system is there to help authorities handle illegal money. Part of the crypto, on the other hand, is exactly about removing those constraints and features, sending few hundred years worth lessons learned down the sink.

I see. I've heard the same thing.

I mean...if this is ever to be legit, I think the industry HAS to beef up security. Who's going to trust a crypto broker/lender now after stories every week of one getting robbed/hacked and them going busto from leverage, etc. The whole industry feels like it's falling apart.

If I lost $50,000 from a hack, I'd never go back.

 

[BWV]

Okay...

That makes some sense. However, is there not the equivalent to FDIC insurance for crypto brokerages? Banks can insure up to $250,000 (if they are an FDIC protected member), while brokerages like Vanguard, Fidelity, etc. have an equivalent that I cannot recall the name of. I think it's up to $10 million. Lloyd's of London/England (or whatever it's called) "insures" some of these major brokerages. I don't know if they're the only "insurer," but I know they are one of them.

So, even if you're hacked at a major brokerage (I'm NOT including Robin Hood, as I don't know, but also b/c I honestly don't trust them), you can often still get reimbursed from insurance even if that hacker/criminal spent the proceeds already.

Does crypto not have such an insurer?

Securities brokers in the US have SIPC, which insures individual accounts up to $500K if the broker becomes insolvent - investors who had money directly invested with Madoff were eligible for this as the firm was a registered broker dealer and the ponzi purported to involve purchasing securities for clients, but crypto is not a security. The crypto grifters have gone to great lengths to protect themselves from cryptocurrencies getting classified as a security and then coming under the authority of regulators.

Given the amount of hacks, what private insurer would want to assume this liability and what would they have to charge for it?

 

[Borg]

So, even if you're hacked at a major brokerage (I'm NOT including Robin Hood, as I don't know, but also b/c I honestly don't trust them), you can often still get reimbursed from insurance even if that hacker/criminal spent the proceeds already.

Does crypto not have such an insurer?

If I understand it correctly, there are two possibilities here - the brokerage holds the wallet and you hold the wallet. This is similar to when you buy a stock from a brokerage - you can choose to have a physical document sent to you which becomes your proof of ownership of the stock. If you lose the paper, you lose the stock. However, if the brokerage holds it and loses it, they reimburse you because they are controlling the stock or wallet. This is similar to your credit card company reimbursing you for charges that you didn't make.

That is as far as the 'insurance' goes however. If a stock loses value, it loses value - that's your risk. Same for crypto. Loss due to theft can be protected by purchasing it through a brokerage but loss due to devaluation is not.

 

[BWV]

Disagree. "Bullish" means you have faith in future value prospects. Stealing crypto today is simply a recognition of the reality of today's value.

[/QUOTE]
Just an attempt at a joke

The crypto space is the Wild West, and there is a lot going on. So just to be clear, I don't think crypto itself a Ponzi scheme, I think crypto itself is an asset bubble. But a company offering exorbitant returns with no identifiable basis/reason is probably a Ponzi scheme, even if the company doesn't even know it.

Ponzi and pyramid schemes require a constant supply of new money and collapse when this dries up - in that sense crypto is in the same category. Not only does bitcoin require a constant stream of new investors, it requires a massive capital spend by miners to keep the network running

 

[Rive]

I mean...if this is ever to be legit, I think the industry HAS to beef up security.

Not just that: compliance too.
And I don't know about all of them but I think the most hyped ones are inherently incapable of that (that's one of their selling point, actually).

 

[Drakkith]

Ponzi and pyramid schemes require a constant supply of new money and collapse when this dries up - in that sense crypto is in the same category.

Well, so are stocks. Prices don't go up without a constant supply of new money to fuel the rise.

 

[kyphysics]

Securities brokers in the US have SIPC, which insures individual accounts up to $500K if the broker becomes insolvent - investors who had money directly invested with Madoff were eligible for this as the firm was a registered broker dealer and the ponzi purported to involve purchasing securities for clients, but crypto is not a security. The crypto grifters have gone to great lengths to protect themselves from cryptocurrencies getting classified as a security and then coming under the authority of regulators.

Given the amount of hacks, what private insurer would want to assume this liability and what would they have to charge for it?

Yeah, I wouldn't want to insure them either.

The thing with major brokerages is that even if you knew someone's account# and password, etc., it's still not that easy to steal. They have so many protections in place. If you enter a name/password, they'll call your landline (hopefully, you're not dumb enough to use your cell for that feature) to give you a one-time usage password to login to the account. So, what is the hacker going to do? Tap your landline phone? Even if he does that and enters your account, they'll usually know from the IP address difference. So, what can he do? Take over your computer? Even if he takes over your computer or spoofs your IP, what can he do?

To get any money, he has to either transfer your assets out and/or sell something (or take your money market fund cash) and put it into some bank account. There will be a record of that. He cannot cash a check if it's in your name. So, he'd have to fake an account with your name and photo ID, etc. Is he going to wear a wig, Mission Impossible face mask, etc. when he sets up the account in person? And even with that fake account, there is a record trail when he ultimately tries to cash out at the bank.

So...quick question(s):

If Mr. Criminal knows someone's crypto account info. and login, can he transfer/cash out that account in a way that leaves NO RECORD trail whatsoever? Or, is the record trail just a bit more difficult to establish vs. brokerage and bank accounts?

 

[BWV]

Well, so are stocks. Prices don't go up without a constant supply of new money to fuel the rise.

No, stocks represent partial ownership in (hopefully) a business that generates internal cash flow. this cash flow can return value through dividends and share repurchases regardless of whether new demand for shares exist

 

[BWV]

So...quick question(s):

If Mr. Criminal knows someone's crypto account info. and login, can he transfer/cash out that account in a way that leaves NO RECORD trail whatsoever? Or, is the record trail just a bit more difficult to establish vs. brokerage and bank accounts?

Basically yes, which is why crypto’s only use cases so far are money laundering, cyber fraud and selling drugs and child porn on the dark web

 

[Rive]

If Mr. Criminal knows someone's crypto account info. and login, can he transfer/cash out that account in a way that leaves NO RECORD trail whatsoever? Or, is the record trail just a bit more difficult to establish vs. brokerage and bank accounts?

There are 20k+ cryptocurrencies right now. I don't think there will be a general answer for that.

As I recall, with remaining in BTC the trail cannot be erased but without accessing the 'target' account(s) the transaction cannot be reversed or the 'money' locked.
But there are ways around that already.

 

[russ_watters]

Ponzi and pyramid schemes require a constant supply of new money and collapse when this dries up - in that sense crypto is in the same category. Not only does bitcoin require a constant stream of new investors, it requires a massive capital spend by miners to keep the network running

Maybe it's a nitpick, but that's a loose association. In a normal Ponzi scheme, the money paid in is paid back out on demand through the fund manager, who skims off the top. The total amount of money held in the fund never actually exists, nor do the gains. Some money and some gains do though.

An asset bubble also at least kind of requires a constant influx of money, but that money is driving supply and demand, not going to a 3rd party who is skimming off the top and falsifying balance sheets. And there's no direct correlation between the volume traded and the value. So, one (generally) has someone committing fraud organizing it, and the other one proceeds organically -- there's no "scheme" and no organizer stealing the money. This difference matters because it could otherwise be argued that every asset with increasing value is a Ponzi scheme. And also that's why someone goes to jail for a Ponzi scheme and no one necessarily does due to an asset bubble.

With Celsius, the reason I say they might not even know it is that I don't know the nuts and bolts of the scheme. If they (Celsius) were simply offering guaranteed 18% returns and figuring crypto would generally make much larger returns and they could pocket the difference, I'd call that a foolish Ponzi, not necessarily a fraudulent one. When the asset bubble is expanding it works, but when the bubble popped, it stopped working in spectacular fashion.

And I think it's foolish on both ends. If you, the investor, are treating it like a high interest savings account and only keep a little money in it, fine, but if you're treating it like an investment then you're letting someone else take most of the returns instead of just buying the underlying asset yourself. Consider the same with a twist on an S&P Index fund. Let's say it makes an average of 10% a year before inflation. It goes up most years, but once a decade or so it drops by 20% for a year or two. Let's say you don't like that and would prefer to see lower but stable growth. I'll offer you a guaranteed 5% return and invest your money in the S&P. I'll absorb the volatility and pocket the long-term difference in the gains. But oops, this time it went down 25% and I didn't keep enough liquid (well, unless you count the winery I bought with your money), so now I can't cover you when you try to take some money out to buy a house. It's foolish because it removes much of the returns without actually removing all the risk.

 

[kyphysics]

There are 20k+ cryptocurrencies right now. I don't think there will be a general answer for that.

As I recall, with remaining in BTC the trail cannot be erased but without accessing the 'target' account(s) the transaction cannot be reversed or the 'money' locked.
But there are ways around that already.

Interesting. So, BTC is one of the "safer" or safest (even if only in relative terms) crypto in your view?

20K cryptos does NOT make sense. 20,000 stocks makes, given so many companies in the world. But, with crypto, that's just crazy! What differentiating factor is there really?

I can understand 20,000 companies doing 20,000 different things of value to society (from Google search to Coca-Cola drinks, all the way to Southwest airlines and AMD chips). I can't grasp 20K coins having truly valuable and unique properties in the same way.

 

[russ_watters]

What differentiating factor is there really?

I can't grasp 20K coins having truly valuable and unique properties in the same way.

There is only one truly valuable and unique cryptocoin: Russcoin has the totally unique and massive advantage over all the others in that if you buy it, I'm the one who gets rich.

 

[Rive]

Interesting. So, BTC is one of the "safer" or safest (even if only in relative terms) crypto in your view?

Sorry: above I meant that by now there are ways to circumvent tracking, and not that by now authorities could revert or block transactions

Interesting. So, BTC is one of the "safer" or safest (even if only in relative terms) crypto in your view?

In my book that word just does not apply. In any sense.

 

[kyphysics]

Basically yes, which is why crypto’s only use cases so far are money laundering, cyber fraud and selling drugs and child porn on the dark web

That certainly makes me wonder if hackers like to target crypto, b/c so many of the victims may be less likely to report. It'd be like robbing a drug dealer or prostitute with them having a harder time explaining a large sum of money to authorities (given illegal occupations).

There have been articles written about how many minority and low-income communities flock to crypto, b/c they are pushed out of traditional banking options. High minimum balances/fees/requirements can make these avenues of wealth storage and growth inaccessible.

Of course, that doesn't mean crypto is safe. It's just that it's more easily accessible. ...And you have major celebs like Matt Damon and even Jay-Z doing commercials/ads for crypto, making it seem both cool and acceptable/safe.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Russcoin

No, no! Vanadium coin! Backed by real Vanadium futures!

Just like stonks - they only go up!

 

[Drakkith]

No, stocks represent partial ownership in (hopefully) a business that generates internal cash flow. this cash flow can return value through dividends and share repurchases regardless of whether new demand for shares exist

Certainly.

Basically yes, which is why crypto’s only use cases so far are money laundering, cyber fraud and selling drugs and child porn on the dark web

Respectfully, that's simply not true. The main aim of most legitimate cryptocurrencies is to create a decentralized platform for various uses like banking, investments, smart contracts, and others. Criminal activity happens of course, but they happen with virtually every other currency in the world too. One can argue the pros and cons of cryptocurrency, and whether they will survive the near future, but please don't spread obvious falsehoods that can be debunked with a one minute google search.

Interesting. So, BTC is one of the "safer" or safest (even if only in relative terms) crypto in your view?

It depends. With BTC, the most dangerous things that can happen to you are to lose your private wallet key (if you control your own wallet), your exchange account (if your wallet is on an exchange or other site that manages wallets for you), or to have that account or the exchange hacked and your assets taken. The blockchain itself is virtually immune to hacking given its decentralized nature and its cryptographic foundations.

Other cryptocurrencies are more centralized, making the threat of a single-point attack much larger, but also making it easier to change the code for updates and even perform 'rollbacks' in the case of a major hack.

So 'safe' is somewhat ambiguous. Is it safer to be completely decentralized, but without a way to protect people from accidents and scams? Or is it safer to be more centralized to protect people?

20K cryptos does NOT make sense. 20,000 stocks makes, given so many companies in the world. But, with crypto, that's just crazy! What differentiating factor is there really?

The vast majority are carbon copies of others with just a different name slapped on to take advantage of the current 'hype' to make quick money, but others are very different in technology and use. For example, ethereum is different than bitcoin, as ethereum allows the incorporation of things like smart contracts onto its blockchain, making it much more flexible and have a broader number of uses than BTC.

 

[kyphysics]

Very educational, Drakkith. Helpful info. above.

Also, in regards to the alleged usefulness of crypto being an alternative, decentralized currency, it seems illogical for 20K to exist. A currency needs decently wide adoption to be successful. ...At least in any wider societal way (I'm not counting like incarcerated inmates trading Ramen noodles or coffee as essentially money in these small, closed communities) that is. There is statistically no chance for all 20K cryptos to be adopted as a currency. Not even for 1,000 of them.

There are 195 "recognized" countries in the entire world. If we set the minimum bar for a currency to mean that a country adopts it, then you've probably got at least 19,800+ non-viable cryptos "currencies."

eta: Although, I just realized "decentralized" + country adoption may seem oxymoronic. I guess I was thinking that "currency" should be one that you can use anywhere within your country for it to be practical. Otherwise, it would seem too limiting (say, if you could only use it in like Nevada or only to buy stuff on Amazon, etc.). You'd still need some other currency in that case to buy stuff in those other situations, which begs the question of why would need/want a crypto then?

What IS the end-goal of a crypto? Is it to get adopted by an entire country? Or maybe just a large population of people? If it's just based on network effects and popularity, what happens if people suddenly dislike Crypto-A and flock to Crypto-B? ...sort of like the risk of social media network effects (ahem, Facebook/Meta...losing popularity to Tik Tok).

 

[Drakkith]

Also, in regards to the alleged usefulness of crypto being an alternative, decentralized currency, it seems illogical for 20K to exist. A currency needs decently wide adoption to be successful. ...At least in any wider societal way (I'm not counting like incarcerated inmates trading Ramen noodles or coffee as essentially money in these small, closed communities) that is. There is statistically no chance for all 20K cryptos to be adopted as a currency. Not even for 1,000 of them.

Absolutely. But cryptocurrencies are VERY easy to create, and may not even require upkeep costs for whoever creates it since many users will gladly start mining at the chance of getting in early, soaking up the upkeep costs themselves, and some cryptocurrencies run on other blockchains, with the blockchain miners getting paid by normal mining fees. So just think of most of those 20k as being 'dead', created on a whim by someone who wanted the next memecoin, or just wanted to create something silly. The majority were not created with any seriousness or were created solely to gather new investors and then dump on them.

It really is an unregulated mess out in the crypto space, which is something everyone thinking about diving into it should be aware of. Don't put money into something that sounds too good to be true, has almost no history, or has a history of problems. If you think you've found a coin that's going to 10,000x your investment within 2 years, you're either wrong, getting scammed, or winning the lottery.

 

[BWV]

Certainly.

Respectfully, that's simply not true. The main aim of most legitimate cryptocurrencies is to create a decentralized platform for various uses like banking, investments, smart contracts, and others. Criminal activity happens of course, but they happen with virtually every other currency in the world too. One can argue the pros and cons of cryptocurrency, and whether they will survive the near future, but please don't spread obvious falsehoods that can be debunked with a one minute google search.

You are conflating the promise and hype with current reality, I was describing current reality - smart blockchain contracts do not exist, Celsius demonstrated the current state of crypto banking and we have all seen the investment results. This leaves crime as the only current use case for crypto

 

[russ_watters]

Respectfully, that's simply not true. The main aim of most legitimate cryptocurrencies is to create a decentralized platform for various uses like banking, investments, smart contracts, and others. Criminal activity happens of course, but they happen with virtually every other currency in the world too. One can argue the pros and cons of cryptocurrency, and whether they will survive the near future, but please don't spread obvious falsehoods that can be debunked with a one minute google search.

Noting @BWV's point, I disagree with the "promise" ("aim") part as well. "Decentralized" is a feature, not an "aim" (goal). The aim/goal has to be in why one wants decentralization. Since what decentralization does is take away government/bank oversight, there's a handful of possible problems that feature might aim to address:

1. Cost and inconvenience of using a bank as a middle-man.
2. Desire for decentralization/privacy/lack of oversight because you don't trust in the institutions of banks and government.
3. Desire for decentralization/privacy/lack of oversight because you're doing something illegal.

If #1 is a promise, it hasn't been realized yet, which is the main reason why adoption has been so limited. It just isn't cheaper, faster or otherwise better to use crypto than a credit card/bank transfer. #2 is a popular one. A lot of people are in crypto as a counter-culture movement. They don't trust banks or governments to not abuse their power. However, while I can see this justifying investing in crypto I don't see it driving much usage of crypto. It just isn't important enough (vs the downsides) for people to want to buy stuff with crypto. Unless...#3 is the other side of the coin from #2. Where #2 is hiding for fear of government malfeasance, #3 is hiding due to [wanting to get away with] user malfeasance.

In addition to these reasons, people might also use crypto just because it's the new thing and they want to try it, regardless of true benefit.

That all said, I haven't seen good data quantifying the usage for the different cases*. Logically there isn't much sense to anything other than crime, but that doesn't mean people don't believe/use it for those other reasons anyway.

*[edit] Note, I have seen claims of regarding the low percentage of transactions used for verifiable crime, but these statistics include all transactions, not just commerce so they don't mean much.

 

[Rive]

This leaves crime as the only current use case for crypto

I think you need to put a 'reliable' in there somewhere

 

[BWV]

Noting @BWV's point, I disagree with the "promise" ("aim") part as well. "Decentralized" is a feature, not an "aim" (goal). The aim/goal has to be in why one wants decentralization. Since what decentralization does is take away government/bank oversight, there's a handful of possible problems that feature might aim to address:

1. Cost and inconvenience of using a bank as a middle-man.
2. Desire for decentralization/privacy/lack of oversight because you don't trust in the institutions of banks and government.
3. Desire for decentralization/privacy/lack of oversight because you're doing something illegal.

If #1 is a promise, it hasn't been realized yet, which is the main reason why adoption has been so limited. It just isn't cheaper, faster or otherwise better to use crypto than a credit card/bank transfer. #2 is a popular one. A lot of people are in crypto as a counter-culture movement. They don't trust banks or governments to not abuse their power. However, while I can see this justifying investing in crypto I don't see it driving much usage of crypto. It just isn't important enough (vs the downsides) for people to want to buy stuff with crypto. Unless...#3 is the other side of the coin from #2. Where #2 is hiding for fear of government malfeasance, #3 is hiding due to user malfeasance.

In addition to these reasons, people might also use crypto just because it's the new thing and they want to try it, regardless of true benefit.

That all said, I haven't seen good data quantifying the usage for the different cases. Logically there isn't much sense to anything other than crime, but that doesn't mean people don't believe/use it for those other reasons anyway.

Just to add to Russ’s second point - you can get an idea how much people really value privacy by how many use Google vs DuckDuckGo, would be willing to pay a monthly subscription for their social media accounts, etc

 

[BWV]

A great site for crypto schadenfreude

https://web3isgoinggreat.com/

 

[kyphysics]

Just to add to Russ’s second point - you can get an idea how much people really value privacy by how many use Google vs DuckDuckGo, would be willing to pay a monthly subscription for their social media accounts, etc

Is DDG as good of a search engine, though? I was under impression Google had the best algorithms.

I wouldn't use Bing, b/c they don't find (nor recommend) me the stuff that I want as well as Google.

 

[BWV]

Is DDG as good of a search engine, though? I was under impression Google had the best algorithms.

I wouldn't use Bing, b/c they don't find (nor recommend) me the stuff that I want as well as Google.

DDG uses Google

 

[Office_Shredder]

DDG uses Google

If this is true it just proves how useful giving away your information to big tech companies is.

 

[kyphysics]

DDG uses Google

As in, the search engine IS Google's? ...but just w/o data collection?

 

[kyphysics]

So, this could be off-topic and, if so, I'm happy to converse about it in another thread...

But, I actually don't mind Google's data collection on me as the price to pay for using their AWESOME services like Maps, Gmail, YouTube, Search...Android, etc. These are extremely valuable tools I use pretty much every day and don't mind data collection or ads (I have an ad blocker anyways) if I don't have to pay a subscription fee.

Nothing in life is free. I value those tools. I'm LESS inclined to put up with Meta/Facebook's data collection, b/c I don't trust their company ethics and don't value their services as much.

 

[BWV]

As in, the search engine IS Google's? ...but just w/o data collection?

had heard that somewhere, but does not appear to be the case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckDuckGo#Features

DuckDuckGo's results are a compilation of "over 400" sources according to itself, including Bing, Yahoo! Search BOSS, Wolfram Alpha, Yandex, and its own web crawler (the DuckDuckBot); but none from Google.[60][3][61][62][63] It also uses data from crowdsourced sites such as Wikipedia, to populate knowledge panel boxes to the right of the search results.[62][64]

 

[fluidistic]

I've skimmed through some of the last messages, instead of replying to each one one by one, I'll make a few comments.

Some people in here confuse Bitcoin with cryptocurrencies. Usually, to each cryptocurrency, there is an associated blockchain. This is not always the case (some of them are built on top of existing blockchains). The vast majority of the blockchains are public knowledge, but some aren't (e.g. as far as I know, Tether's USDT is private, and funds are freezable by Tether itself, and this has been used to freeze hackers' stolen funds). Some are obfuscated (Monero).

Bitcoin's security isn't as crystal clear as mentioned here. It is a complex system with more than 1 way to "crack" it. If you crack it, it doesn't mean you could crack other cryptocurrencies. Some cryptocurrencies are already, partially at least, resistant to quantum computing crack, as a security for a near future (e.g. Algorand).

Bitcoin doesn't "need" more people to use it, or more computing power. Bitcoin would work even if the whole world would gradually lower the computing resources down to an rpi, although in this extreme case a 51% attack wouldn't be preventable, but you get the idea.

I don't know what you mean when you say that there is no smart contract on the blockchain. Bitcoin's blockchain, sure, it's an archaic cryptocurrency that lacks smart contract capability. But others like Ethereum do. I have learned about a new way to make transactions on the Ethereum (and possibly other cryptocurrencies with smart contracts capability) impossible/near impossible to track down. The idea is that you send fund to a smart contract address, and its execution means that your funds will be sent to several different wallets, at different time, with different amounts. Apparently there is no obvious way to figure out where the money goes (see Tornado).

A smart contract could be supposed to replace a bank. If you can understand the code of the contract, you can guess/know what's going on. But that's not all to trust it. If the underlying blockchain hits the fan for some reason or another, then there is still a risk that the contract doesn't get fulfilled. Some popular (but centralized cryptocurrencies) have been DDOSed and were shut down momentarily (I don't really understand why people and companies invest in these shitty projects, but I'm not here to bash a particular crypto. I'm talking about Solana in particular, but several others are in the very same category.)

And citing the number of cryptocurrencies is bogus. You're probably less than 2 clicks away from creating a new one, by git cloning a github repository. Some people do that, change the name of the crypto and do pump and dump. But don't lose your time investigating this, this isn't worth it.

Edit: I think about USDT I am wrong. It is spread on several blockchains, the most popular one might be ethereum's one. It's the total reserves of USDT that is kept private. They can freeze your funds so I suppose there is a smart contract involved in some way. This should be easy to figure out for the interested (I am not.).

Edit 2: I remember a while back I had found a website explaining, with details but not all details, how Bitcoin work(ed). I think it is https://michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/, though I'm not 100% sure now.

There was another one explaining, with lots of details, why Bitcoin isn't anonymous, but it's not as transparent as it seems either.