[alexatalktome]

Dude, are you trying to miss the point to score internet argument wins?

This man is writing large, thoughtful explanation -complete with concessions and limits- that is not hyped and not biased and you’re latching on to minor details and using that as a reason to poo-poo the logic? You’re petty arguing against a calm factual explanation. They’re not even good arguments.

“You could have done that by putting it under your bed” is so silly and intellectually dishonest. Try to imagine the other side here, and at least consider the possibility that there is room for additional value beyond your world view. At least try to see the other side even if you won’t want to see from the other side.

[gitfan86]

I certainly appreciate that he makes concessions and thoughtfully explains his side. But my point is pretty simple, as I said in the beginning crypto isn't a world changing technology. It has marginal use cases like being cheaper for some specific countries that to do wire transfers. I never said it was never going to have any use cases ever. I'm more than happy to learn about more use cases as they appear. But nothing new has been presented here.

As far as intellectual dishonest goes, storing your wealth in physical items that are in your physical possession is something that people actually do. I personally don't do that, but the reality is that some people don't trust banks and they don't trust a network of computers. To say that it is dishonest to point out that there were already alternatives to banks seems inaccurate.