How is the thrust of this story any different from someone losing paper cash? How many millions/billions have been lost from physical currency becoming inaccessible?
The issue at hand is the potential value of “distributed consensus and verifiable transactions with no central trusted authority”.
My point is that most people seem to prefer having a central trusted authority, specifically for custodianship.
That’s why most people put money that is significant to them somewhere in the banking system rather than a shoebox or a tin can somewhere. They want that money to be be traceable, accessible, and recoverable.
There are exceptions, of course, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule, IMO.
I can't help but think that the "accessibility" is doing most of the work here. Handling cash is a pain in the ass. Giving a merchant a series of 23 numbers over the computer is comparatively easier.
My point is that most people seem to prefer having a central trusted authority, specifically for custodianship.
That’s why most people put money that is significant to them somewhere in the banking system rather than a shoebox or a tin can somewhere. They want that money to be be traceable, accessible, and recoverable.
There are exceptions, of course, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule, IMO.