[sweetbitter]

> Cryptocurrencies are a qualitatively new thing humanity has never had to deal with ever, no matter how insistent are cryptocurrency aficionados’ in calling it merely “a digital version of cash”. This serves their wallets, by suspending deserved wariness and encouraging unsophisticated people to invest into a financial pyramid, but not truthful description of reality.

Holding no cryptocurrency myself (I don't need to buy anything with it atm :D) I would hardly call myself an 'aficionado'. But you must understand that to compare does not mean to equate. All I was saying is that cryptographic currencies have some of the properties that cash has, but that they also have the ease of transport and storage afforded to us by credit.

I don't see the issue with being able to transport cash across the 'net. Governments can still regulate businesses, banks, so if you go and buy a car and your government wants to know to tax it, the business selling you the car can just report this income. If a bank held your asset for you, they could just be subject to similar regulations as when they hold other assets for you. Once you stop treating it like credit or like some amorphous blob that cannot be regulated, this stuff gets pretty simple to understand.

[strogonoff]

> I don't see the issue with being able to transport cash across the 'net.

The very idea of “physically unconstrained cash” is relatively new to humanity so there are some unknown unknowns, but even then I think the issues are obvious by now.

The necessity to handle a physical object limits the scale of potential upsides (help relatives, etc.) and downsides (scam people, etc.) of cash—and it might have transpired that, with that necessity removed, the downsides and exploits are much more sought after and outweigh potential upsides.