https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...
https://www.wired.com/story/the-full-story-of-the-stunning-r...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_federal_gov...
I think people also have this strange idea that the bitcoin ledger must represent all bitcoin transactions. But think for a minute that I can just email you a wallet and the coins just changed hands without putting anything on the ledger.
I won't trust that you destroyed your own copies of the keys, so I'll want to transfer the coins to another wallet first thing with a real transaction recorded on the ledger. Otherwise I'm risking that at any time you could take the coins back from me.
Couldn't attackers still say, "Go get some BTC and deposit it. Where do you get some? Not our problem."
Maybe there's something I'm missing.
The US has now made paying bribes in other countries into US felonies. So now US companies do not pay bribes if they are sane.
So sure, an attacker could say "Go get some BTC and deposit it. Where do you get some? Not our problem." But then the executive in charge would have to choose between (1) committing a felony with jail time attached for him or (2) possibly going out of business and finding a new job. For sensible people, that's not really a choice.
Seems like you sweep up a lot of innocent consumers who just want to use bitcoin, and if paying bribes is already illegal I'm not sure what additional incentive this adds.
I guess my point in this post and prior was: paying the bribe is the problem, not the medium they wish to use to transact.