[argvargc]

I genuinely appreciate your comment and the direction it provides - it's rare to see this when people disagree.

When re-reading the OP's comment just now, I just can't interpret it any other way other than "see! crypto bad". Maybe I'm missing something.

I'd accept that my responding, effectively in-kind ("see! your position bad"), isn't particularly useful other than potentially alerting them to the fact (my intention), and I'd no doubt do better to provide some examples of benefits at least (as I see the current top-voted reply did, that is otherwise identical to mine).

My admission of that however, does not indemnify the original commenter - at least, in terms of my interpretation of their comment, which is really all I can be responsible for.

[dalbasal]

Cheers mate.

The original comment linked ransomware to crypto, which isn't too controversial. There are good things about crypto, which may outweigh that... certainly discussable.

Personally, I don't see either point as representing the most substantial positive or negative of crypto... so I don't really have a dog in this one.

No need do indemnify or vilify anyone. It's perfectly ok to hold any of these views. It's also fine to make an unconvincing argument... it just may not be convincing.