| Every time a crypto article is posted there are a large amount of people who are only capable of thinking in absolutes like you.* I don't think it's a very good currency (in the tx time/volume sense), but I think viewing crypto's viability as an all-or-nothing game is unreasonable--that includes both those for it and those against it. As for your assertions about failures: - CEXs have failed (in the worst way possible too, see MtGox, BTC-e, FTX), but that doesn't mean they have all failed--or that there isn't a future for them. - Hardware wallets haven't failed at all really. Like, Trezor and Ledger are the largest I think, and those are fine AFAIK. Are you referring to Ledger's recent news with the optional update including a backdoor for those that want to sync keys with Ledger's new service? (Seems like a dumb business decision imho, seems oxymoronic--hardware wallet as a service? lol) - Soft wallets have been hacked and are risky, but I think the success rate here is pretty high. A large percent of crypto users use soft wallets like Brave's Wallet and MetaMask, the vast majority of these are fine AFAIK. Not exactly safe IMO, but considering the amount of people who use them and haven't been hacked, this is certainly not an obvious "failure" Also, unrelated to crypto, but reducing people who disagree with you to "kool-aid drinkers" and "accidentally correct people" is a negative life choice IMO * I think you are capable of not thinking in absolutes, I just wanted to be mean on the internet |
While I disagree with your post, that last frank comment made me smile.