[keyanp]

> the ability to trust that the ledger is accurate seems extremely valuable

Maybe it "seems" valuable, but why exactly is it valuable? For what use case and which situation (besides crime)?

I think the issue is that many don't see value in its "primary value proposition" because the features they want from banks are already there (stability, FDIC insurance). The only thing I personally see missing is no/low-fee instant transfers, but crypto hasn't solved that either (too slow and/or high fees).

[bobmichael]

One IMO realistic use-case is providing a wealth preservation mechanism for people living in a country with a corrupt government that's experiencing hyperinflation, for example Lebanon.

[webmaven]

> One IMO realistic use-case is providing a wealth preservation mechanism for people living in a country with a corrupt government that's experiencing hyperinflation, for example Lebanon.

Sure, but (like it or not) that's covered under the umbrella of "crime".

[munchler]

In that case, I think the point is that some "crime" is ethically justified and worth supporting technologically. The OP's statement implies that all crime is bad.

[webmaven]

Sure. But it is worth asking if this particular channel of support is worth enabling all the other forms of criminality that use cryptocurrencies.

[betwixthewires]

Yep, but all that means is that "crime" is a meaningless distinction itself.

[CyanBird]

> One IMO realistic use-case is providing a wealth preservation

Any other fiat currency already provides this such as usd, euro, Israeli currency etc and they are at least currently far easier to aquire and done have any gas feeds other than consumption tax if any

On Lebanon where electricity is unreliable seems like a particularly bad idea to use any sort of Crypto, let alone the user friction as a consequence of network gas prices

On real world scenarios, if a country is having issues relating to inflation or is a small market to begin with, consumer prices are denominated on Usd or some other currency anyway

[CTDOCodebases]

True but opening foreign bank accounts is difficult and like western countries physical cash can be legally seized by authorities even if it was acquired legally.

[floatboth]

Cryptocurrencies can also be legally seized. Anything can be.

[BTCOG]

This is only if the end user allows seizure. If I have only a 12-word seed in my memory and not a single private key written down anywhere in my house and no bitcoin wallet installed on any computer, you have absolutely no way of confiscating anything. It's something that a lot of outsiders do not even realize. Bitcoin is actually entirely un-confiscatable. If someone commits private keys to memory or entirely encrypts and off-sites private keys, exactly how can the money be confiscated? It cannot be confiscated. Any human in the world can move freely about the globe at this point in time with billions of asset value solely residing inside their brain. Import that memory into any mobile or desktop client wallet anywhere in the world, or recite the key secretly to someone else they trust anywhere in the world.

[CTDOCodebases]

True. But cryptocurrency gives people the option to resist seizure and suffer the consequences.

[giantrobot]

People living under a corrupt government and experiencing hyperinflation are no safer or necessarily better off with cryptocurrency. Conducting cryptocurrency transactions requires a non-trivial amount of infrastructure. Even "offline" transactions with a Rube Goldbergian number of mesh network components needs all those components to work.

A fortune in Bitcoin in a conflict/disaster zone is no more useful than a fortune in dollars in a bank if you can't access it readily. Your fortune means shit if you can't buy a loaf of bread.

Even if you can access the infrastructure necessary to spend cryptocurrency to buy a loaf of bread they provide no protection against localized inflation. Prices of goods in a conflict zone increase significantly due to dangers/difficulty associated with the supply chain or lack thereof. Sometimes they increase due simply to greed. Transacting in a cryptocurrency doesn't help at all with this. Your Bitcoin fortune can be wiped out just feeding your family since your only other option is to starve to death.

[betwixthewires]

> ...(besides crime)

First you have to define "crime." If by "crime" you mean "any activity outside the purview of regulatory authorities" then you're defining everything that isn't a bank account as crime. It is circular logic. "Its only use case is crime because using it is crime." If you more narrowly define crime as criminal acts besides just unregulated financial activities, then you can start to see the value proposition.

[keyanp]

That is a straw man. This is not my definition of crime, I was thinking things like money laundering, tax evasion, ransomware payments, and blackmarket purchases.

I'm genuinely not sure what a use case for unregulated financial activity would be that doesn't fall into those buckets.

Someone mentioned retaining assets in countries with hyperinflation. To me it appears a central bank digital currency would be more appropriate there.

[betwixthewires]

A straw man? I just wanted a definition of "crime".

"Blackmarket purchases" has the same problem "crime" does, it's self supporting.

[mitchdoogle]

Banks can give your money away without your knowledge. Happens all the time, and people have little recourse. Worse yet, it's seen as the victim's responsibility and not the bank's.