[SilasX]

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?

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.

[SilasX]

I don't see the relevance of those points to the distinctions being made on this thread?

[JumpCrisscross]

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).

[SilasX]

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.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

> B: But how would you do that while keeping the decentralization?

Nobody (in the general sense) actually cares about decentralization; it serves no utility in and of itself. People only care about the ability to easily transact regardless of borders.

> Me: Cash has the same theft-irreversibility issue

I'd argue this isn't entirely correct. A cash holder can insure against theft of cash kept on premises, and in transit to a deposit facility; professional services can be hired to transport cash. As far as I'm aware these protections don't exist for cryptocurrency

> The comment only works if you assume Bitcoin is only used for speculation

At this stage it appears to me that is it's only (major?) legitimate use. Other uses probably include money laundering, and the exchange of value between parties involved in illegal activities, or for the purposes of evading regulations.

[SilasX]

Your first and third points are refuted by Wikileaks: it's legal to contribute to them, but centralization made it possible for the US government to apply financial chokeholds to US banks that it made it impossible for Americans to do so electronically. So yes, if you care about using a currency to "transfer value to legal recipients who are far away", then you would care about centralization and its ability to prevent that capability.

>A cash holder can insure against theft of cash kept on premises, and in transit to a deposit facility; professional services can be hired to transport cash. As far as I'm aware these protections don't exist for cryptocurrency

You're referring to an optional add-on to cash that is not inherent to it. The act of holding cash does not automatically get you the protection of someone replacing it when you're mugged, and neither does Bitcoin have automatic replacement.

There do exist services that will thusly insure cash. But there's no inherent reason why it can't be provided for bitcoin too, it's just that the market isn't bit and mature enough for people to have sought it out (though Coinbase claims to have it).

In any case, the whole issue of "insurance in transit" is kind of obviated for an electronic currency too, at least with respect to physical theft.

[cgmg]

> Nobody (in the general sense) actually cares about decentralization; it serves no utility in and of itself.

What evidence do you have to support this ridiculous claim? The vast amount of interest in cryptocurrencies seems to indicate otherwise, not to mention the use of all kinds of decentralized cryptographic protocols.

[s73v3r_]

Someone taking my physical cash means they have to actually come to me, or come to my home which has security cameras.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

Or your business, which would probably (should?) have insurance against cash theft; time-delay safes; and professional cash transport services.