I think we're perfectly allowed to discuss whether we think a particular kind of change is a good or bad thing.
My point is only that the original comment didn't attempt make any argument, other than the reduced one I outlined.
You "reduced" difficult to trace digital currencies to "any kind of positive development in personal sovereignty."
No need to keep defending a mistake. Just reread your own comment and the OP's. Respond to the comment itself, not other discussions you've had on the topic. If you think the argument implies something you disagree with, make the connection. Don't just assert that the argument reduces to this. Besides being mistake prone, it's unfriendly and unproductive.
I've made plenty of comments myself that I don't/shouldn't stand behind, in short retrospect. I suspect this is one of yours. Minor foul. Happens. Shake hands and make good.
When re-reading the OP's comment just now, I just can't interpret it any other way other than "see! crypto bad". Maybe I'm missing something.
I'd accept that my responding, effectively in-kind ("see! your position bad"), isn't particularly useful other than potentially alerting them to the fact (my intention), and I'd no doubt do better to provide some examples of benefits at least (as I see the current top-voted reply did, that is otherwise identical to mine).
My admission of that however, does not indemnify the original commenter - at least, in terms of my interpretation of their comment, which is really all I can be responsible for.
