I would interpret the data as agreeing, not denying, that digital currencies are used in crime. I don't believe that was being debated.
The open question is whether legitimate uses of digital currencies outweigh their illegitimate uses. The supplied data, which you're welcome to rebut, strongly suggests they do.
More to the point, the data suggests that GP's simple solution to stopping ransomware crime -- banning an entire class of media of exchange -- won't be effective. Not only has ransomware existed at least since the 1980s, well before the 2009 introduction of Bitcoin, but it isn't even dependent on digital currencies. (My personal and anecdotal intersection with it shows 0% usage; one in the 1990s demanded a mailed money order, and the other in 2023 provided a phone number to call and read gift-card scratch-off codes.)
Did you just go to Wikipedia article for Ransomware, saw 1989 AIDS Trojan being mentioned and now claim that ransomware existed since 1980? AIDS Trojan didn't really work and didn't provide any kind of anonymity for its creator. It was created by a mentally ill person. There were no instances of successful ransomware before Bitcoin. It really started with CryptoLocker. CryptoLocker gave victim an option to pay with either cash card or bitcoin. Cash cards were converted to bitcoin, which was outsourced to third party low-level criminals who took the risk of being caught. So bitcoin was absolutely critical piece here. And it was true for all successful ransomware schemes since. I stand behind my claim that ransomware wouldn't be possible without crypto. It's especially true about extortion attacks against corporations, like what article talks about.
Apple II floppies in the 1980s that contained a bad version of DOS 3.3, circulated on BBSes. I was never personally affected, but I heard (at the time, not after the fact) that the point was to drive traffic to a certain pirate BBS that charged for membership. I don't know how such memberships were paid for, but I do remember that Sprint long-distance codes were being traded at the time, so it would make sense to use that method. I also saw a Mac virus that encrypted word-processing files. This was in either late 1980s or early 1990s (I wasn't sure in my earlier post, so I erred on the side of recency). That was the one that promised recovery by postal mail. I don't know anything about the "AIDS Trojan" that you mention.
It seems very important to you that you successfully draw a bright line between digital-currency-funded ransomware and the other ransomware that preceded it. You might strengthen your argument by taking a position closer to reality, which is that digital currencies have facilitated online transfers of value, and thus have become more popular. From that point of view, one would hope that digital currencies would come to dominate, including in the realm of ransomware. But again, that gets us back to the original topic: whether the beneficial uses of such currencies outweigh their negative uses.
The open question is whether legitimate uses of digital currencies outweigh their illegitimate uses. The supplied data, which you're welcome to rebut, strongly suggests they do.
More to the point, the data suggests that GP's simple solution to stopping ransomware crime -- banning an entire class of media of exchange -- won't be effective. Not only has ransomware existed at least since the 1980s, well before the 2009 introduction of Bitcoin, but it isn't even dependent on digital currencies. (My personal and anecdotal intersection with it shows 0% usage; one in the 1990s demanded a mailed money order, and the other in 2023 provided a phone number to call and read gift-card scratch-off codes.)
Banning money doesn't stop crime.