You have the same recourse that you would if someone took your physical cash, which Bitcoin seeks to mimic properties of. Do you make the same arguments against physical cash, or is there some other substantive difference, are you singling out Bitcoin?
> You have the same recourse that you would if someone took your physical cash
People don't speculate in physical cash. Also, cash being physical constrains the speed at which it can move. It also makes things like cameras useful.
The amount of time the average person holds cash is small. It is held for transactional purposes. Investments, on the other hand, are held for long periods and not necessarily closely watched. (Most people also have more in investments than petty cash.) TL; DR The risks associated with cash are acceptable for a transactional medium; less so for an investment (hence the decline of bearer bonds in common use).
Yes, I understand the difference between the uses of cash and investments. To repeat, I was asking you to relate it to the earlier discussion. To summarize, it went like this:
A: Regulator influence on Bitcoin would be good, as it makes theft easier to reverse.
B: But how would you do that while keeping the decentralization?
C: You can't. But no one likes to hear that if they're optimistic about Bitcoin and think it can be use outside of speculation.
Me: Cash has the same theft-irreversibility issue, with the same tradeoff against centralization. What's the difference?
I was asking how your comment was relevant to that exchange, not for a second way to restate what you already said. I was confused because your followup comment did not have any clear relationship to that exchange, about the tradeoffs between utility, reversibility, and decentralization. To quote your comment, with remarks about the relevance:
>People don't speculate in physical cash.
How is it relevant that people don't speculate in physical cash? The fact that people don't speculation in physical cash doesn't mean people only speculate in Bitcoin.[1]
>Also, cash being physical constrains the speed at which it can move.
How is it relevant that cash has this constraint? That would be a point in favor of bitcoin in the context of the above discussion, and would lower the burden for proving utility.
>It also makes things like cameras useful.
I don't see the relevance of this either.
So, again, I'm asking how your comment relates to the discussion that just happened. It seemed like you were just dropping in to make a general "why bitcoin is bad" argument, which is why I asked how the comment was relevant. I still don't see it. Can I assume there was no relationship, and you just saw it as an opportunity to say why bitcoin compares favorably to cash?
[1] The comment only works if you assume Bitcoin is only used for speculation, which would be assuming your conclusion.
I'm pro-centralisation in the sense that it comes with regulatory protections that are a net good for the average person, in my opinion.
If decentralisation comes with the risks that cryptocurrencies presently present, I'm not really interested.