[rekoil]

Ironically your response is the tone-deaf and stupid one here.

The person you're replying to isn't arguing for people to be using "Jim's shady internet bank" or a random buddys bank, they are discussing the ability of current trusted actors to act as custodians and insurers for cryptocurrency-wallets, hiding the scary and difficult aspects of cryptocurrency, while operating on top of an open-source, trust-less, publicly auditable, open base-layer like a blockchain.

They are saying it's possible to regard cryptocurrency as a base-layer for economic transactions, and that without it it's basically not possible today to leave the traditional banking world behind if one wants to maintain a digital presence. Don't you think it should be? Why should an individual be forced to have someone else be custodian for their wealth?

Cryptocurrencies also aren't really finished yet, there are a lot of improvements to be made before it is possible to replace the existing financial infrastructure and maintain its scale.

[MBCook]

> Cryptocurrencies also aren't really finished yet

It’s been 14 years. When will they be “finished”? What does that look like? What are the goals?

It seems to me like the original goals failed (take over the world, everyone use Bitcoin like cash) and so the goalpost moving began (sidechains, PoW “soon”, NFTs, etc).

I’ve seen nothing of value produced out of 14 years if hype. Only wasted resources and what seems to be an accidental Ponzi scheme.