What is “good” is determined by the options available, not by all theoretically possible options. The average person in say, Argentina, isn’t going to have access to complex financial instruments and so is functionally choosing between a hyperinflating local currency and a volatile-but-still-going-up bitcoin. This is a real world use case and it’s echoed in countless places around the world - most of which, I imagine, the most strident crypto critics haven’t ever been to.
Sure, I get that. And I'm not in a position where I need to use crypto, so I know I'm not going to feel it like someone in that position would. And I agree that they should use the best option available to them, and that crypto might be it.
But otherwise, I disagree: "good" is not solely determined by the options available. When comparing options, you can only say that some are "better" or "worse". Crypto may be better for some people than their other options, but that doesn't make it good. (Consider sayings like "the best of bad options" or "the lesser of evils". It's an acknowledgement that none of the options are good, but some are nonetheless better than others.)
Ideally people in these situations do -- sooner rather than later -- get some actually good options. Maybe crypto will morph into that, or maybe people would get better (and quicker) bang for their buck tackling the problem from a different angle. I don't know what that other angle might be, but I worry that crypto ends up being a sort of local maximum that hits a ceiling, one that is better than the alternatives for some people, but is still not particularly good.
What’s the alternative you’re proposing? For the average person in these countries to push for radical political and economic changes against their governments? Governments which are typically more controlling in the first place? All of this so that they can just not have their meager savings eaten away by inflation?
Again, this kind of criticism has little contact with reality and mostly comes from people without actual experience in using the tech. In the real world, in places with hyperinflation or other financial issues, bitcoin isn’t “the lesser of two evils.”
I think you're not really listening. I explicitly said I don't have any alternatives to offer. Maybe some sort of future magical internet money that doesn't suck in the ways the current crypto ecosystems do?
I also absolutely acknowledged I don't have experience living in that kind of situation. Not sure why you seem to be getting so worked up about this.
I never claimed Bitcoin was the lesser of two evils. I was merely illustrating my disagreement with your assertion that "good" is determined by the options available, not out of hypothetical options or some idea of "objective good". But I do think Bitcoin (and most crypto) can be (for some people) the best of bad/so-so/meh options. And that's great that it exists for people, when their other options are worse.
But I really hope we can do better than this. Obviously we can't right now, and I'm not suggesting that someone who lives under a repressive financial regime is going to have to be the one responsible for figuring out what that is. But I have to believe that better -- something that's actually good, unlike current cryptocurrency -- is possible.
I’m not getting worked up about it, I just don’t really understand this line of criticism. Yeah, it’s not perfect and the people pushing it as some messianic currency solution are obviously grifters. But what technology is perfect?
It is being used right now, today, in ways that benefit people’s lives in demonstrable ways, and so with your admitted lack of alternatives, I don’t quite understand the reasoning here, unless you’re just arguing about the abstract definition of good.
I focused on the real world knowledge because I think a lot of the criticism of bitcoin in general lacks an understanding of how the tech is really used, and is just abstract academic criticism.
