No. It just affords you the possibility of choosing a different set of risks, that's all. Please don't change my words to fit your idea of a cryptocurrency shill.
You need bitcoin exchanges for any kind of practical transaction. Not only that, people who don't keep their money on exchanges lose their coins all the time. It's just the worst store of value. It would be more practical to transact in wheat like the Sumerians did. Or just dollars.
This stuff just keeps on happening, but crypto folks always make some excuse as to why it's not actually a systemic problem.
> You need bitcoin exchanges for any kind of practical transaction. Not only that, people who don't keep their money on exchanges lose their coins all the time.
OK, what's your point? Nobody claimed it was perfect, just that it happens to be immune to the particular failure mode which happened here. Can you accept that that is true?
> This stuff just keeps on happening, but crypto folks always make some excuse as to why it's not actually a systemic problem.
What "stuff"? People losing coins? People lose cash all the time, does that make it a "systemic problem" with cash? They are just different technologies with different trade-offs.
It's understandable that you hate the cryptocurrency community but that doesn't mean you need to deny every possible advantage of cryptocurrencies.
"it happens to be immune to the particular failure mode which happened here"
What exactly do you mean by "immune to the particular failure mode"? Is bitcoin immune to server or data center outages? Perhaps if you very narrowly limit which ones you are talking about to the bitcoin network per se.
Its not immune, no system is absolutely immune to failure, but it is highly resillient because of the wide distribution of its nodes and the fact that each node carries a full copy of the ledger.
Of course! With bitcoin, nothing is the fault of bitcoin and always something else's fault. Bitcoin can never fail. It can only be failed.