> Personally, I think the burden of proof goes the other way.
Well, it's not exactly a brand new experiment, we already know what happens when you have a deflationary store of value alongside fiat currency, and we see that in Gold today. The concept isn't strictly unheard of. I think what's debatable is if the last 70 or so years of gold alongside fiat currencies is sufficient enough information for us to conclude that having things like gold and gold-like assets won't be disastrous to a financial system.
> so far mainly useful for scams, ransomware, market manipulation, money laundering, and other kinds of light financial crime. (Plus speculation of course, but there were plenty of options for that before.)
This is true of paper cash, too. There’s a common saying that if cash were invented today, it would be illegal, since it’s hard for the government to track and they wouldn’t like it, which I find amusingly true. The preponderance of bad people using a tool doesn't immediately render the tool itself bad.
Bitcoin (and crypto) has been around for only 12 years now. Is it perfect? No absolutely not, there are a ton of kinks that need to be ironed out. Costs and speed need to be improved (probably through L2 protocols), we need to find ways to reduce energy consumption and use green energy as much as possible, we need to make sure that the money flowing into schemes like Tether is legitimate. I think the proponents all know that there is still lots of work to be done, and it feels like the detractors think that the adherents don't know that.
What's especially entertaining to me, personally, is that I have no horse in this race; I don't work with or for any crypto institutions and I hold a tiny amount of play BTC/ETH just for curiosity's sake. I am neither a proponent nor a detractor. But the sheer amount of misinformation and strawmen arguments leveled against BTC has has pushed me to seek out the strongest possible arguments in favor of BTC, so thanks for that.
