[anonym29]

It comes at the cost of having inflationary currency that punishes you for saving rather than spending, unlike non-inflationary currencies.

Some people care more about the property of being non-inflationary than they do about the property of transaction reversibility.

Edit: Why the downvote? You caring more about reversibility doesn't mean it's a universally shared value.

[sillysaurusx]

It’s hard not to complain about downvotes, but worthwhile. The goal is to write for an audience, and to foster curious conversation. Sometimes votes reflect that, sometimes not, but we always have control of what we ourselves write.

In this case, it may be the snark. I recently fell victim to this myself a couple months ago. It’s very easy to be snarky without really meaning to; doubly so about topics you care deeply about. The “low, low cost” bit is hard to read as anything else. (It’s what kept me from giving your comment a deserved upvote, because you’re right. But the conversational quality supersedes merely being right.)

[anonym29]

Thank you for the good faith feedback, I appreciate it and will try to avoid the snark moving forward.

[oldgradstudent]

Instead of having an inflationary currency, you have inflation in the number of currencies.

[anonym29]

Sure, but you are not forced to use shitcoins. There will naturally be some cryptocurrencies that are worse than others, just as there are FIAT currencies worse than others (e.g. Venezuelan Bolivar vs the Swiss Franc). Consumers being given a greater choice offers opportunity for them to choose to use currencies with superior qualities than the ones they would otherwise have access to. Like with other choices in life generally, the consumer has a responsibility to make an informed choice. While failing to do so has adverse effects for the consumer, it is not the fault of the currency that the consumer made an uninformed or poor choice, no?