| The difference is that the existing financial system is used by about 3/4 of the world population (closer to 94% in developed nations) for the exchange of actual goods and services. Bitcoin has significantly fewer users, but more importantly it is almost never used for the actual exchange of goods or services. With my bank (and the accompanying infrastructure that goes along with it), my employer can deposit directly into my account, which I can then use to pay rent online (as opposed to physically traveling to their office), buy groceries at the store, and purchase nearly every legal good or service that is for sale, all while reducing the odds of me being robbed or losing money (e.g. losing my wallet.) If someone or some business scams me, I'm given methods of retrieving my money without confronting them in person. It also allows me to autopay all my bills so I'm never charged for forgetting to pay (and frankly I have very little desire to write and mail several checks each month or travel to various places to pay in cash.) Credit cards, debit cards, direct deposit and money transfers are far more convenient than using cash, and aside from convenience, I imagine they decrease a nation's carbon footprint over using exclusively cash (due to less need to mint, print and transport physical currency, as well as travel in person to pay or receive payment.) They do come at a cost of privacy, but if I wanted privacy for a specific purchase, I can still use cash for those specific transactions. While it may have a higher carbon footprint than digital payments, overall ink and paper tend to have low carbon footprints (though it's probably a bit higher for currency than it is for standard A4 paper.) Still, it's near certainly less carbon intensive than Bitcoin (per purchase, maybe not in total since billions of people actually use paper currency to buy things at least sometimes.) Cryptocurrencies and their accompanying anonymity can bring about good things, so I'm open to at least considering their value — there are countries with authoritarian and oppressive governments, and there have been several democracies that have fallen to dictatorship before and that very well could happen again in the future. As such, being able to anonymously transfer money does have its value, especially in a world with CCTVs and facial recognition. Cryptocurrencies, of course, also can be used for illegal services that are near universally considered immoral and evil. Currently, in most countries (even ones that aren't exactly liberal democracies), this is likely a much larger harm. Balancing freedom from and freedom to is always tricky: neither authoritarianism nor anarchy are appealing — allowing personal freedom while preventing people from encroaching on other people's personal freedoms is difficult to achieve. However, even if I were fully convinced that cryptocurrencies currencies were a net positive on society (open to considering the idea but definitely not convinced yet), I struggle to see how one with such a large carbon footprint is what should be used. |