However crooks are always going to be among the early adopters, so I my guess i my answer would be that it has limited value, right now.
Regardless even if we came to the collective decision that we wanted to get rid of bitcoin, its not feasible due to its decentralized nature.
I can't remember the last time I saw physical cash. The only ones I know who are still using cash are drug dealers. Not saying it should be banned but it's almost gone in my country already.
I was about to say "that's not true, the pot stores are cash only too", before realizing that from the perspective of the Feds that's the same thing.
So I guess my real answer is non-business transactions, like buying things on craigslist, or paying my cat sitter.
In my country you send money to other people with an app using their telephone number. It's developed as a joint venture between all banks.
I would argue the concept of "perfect neutrality" is a non-sequitur. When someone says something is very neutral, it seems to me they are actually noticing that something either has near universal acceptance in the current mind-share or is simply non-consequential such that no one really cares one way or another.
It reminds me "inherent value" (the general philosophical concept, not the financial term with very specific meaning), which a lot of thinkers find to be a misguided concept.
That's not to say we should ban bitcoin. And even if we wanted to, as you said, attempting to do so would be a rather absurd endeavor.
This seems true at face value. Consider the cutting edge technology aka as a knife, with an inherent bias for cutting things.
Dinner time. Killing time. ("Food is murder"?)
It is the context of utility of technology that is the determining factor. A technology, imo, can be deemed directly culpable of ill effects IFF it permits no other utility context other than that which results in morally or ethically unaceptable outcomes.
Ever nuclear weapons can be used for good, you know. (Extinguish fires, for example.)
You can pretty much always find a non harmful use for anything so requiring no non harmful users is effectively useless as a criteria.
You mean, besides the roads, and the wine, and the aquaduct?
Bitcoin should exist for the same reasons Tor exists. Just because Tor is used by child predators and of little practical use to the average Western citizen doesn't negate its positive value.
you cant just say that and expect me to decide its worth it on balance, you need to make a case for it. maybe this isnt the place, but its a funny thing to just kind of assert. arguing that things should exist because there are potential upsides is missing the point, which is that the downsides may outweigh the upsides. its particularly bold to make that claim about tor- there must be a hell of an upside to justify the child predators...
That is reason enough.
Even if Tor didn't exist, there would be child pornography. Would there more, less, or just as much of it? That's difficult to say. It's also difficult to say how much easier it makes the lives of those fighting for freedom of speech. Thus, saying whether Tor is, overall, a "good" or "bad" technology would involve comparing two unknown quantities.
I think at the end of the day, it comes down to the fact that with every new tool comes the opportunity to use it for good or evil. So I wouldn't blame the tool, but rather the person who uses it for good purposes or for ill.
You can't go back in time and "undo" Bitcoin. If you criminalize Bitcoin, crooks might very well continue to use it, if it's their best option. It won't be as financially liquid, of course, but the crooks will just tweak their prices to account for this. Either a more efficient underground payment system will be used, if Bitcoin were criminalized, or Bitcoin would continue to be used.
The proverbial cat's out the bag: crooks have access to Bitcoin code, too, and can easily replicate a blockchain to create CrookCoin. You can't truly prevent criminals from doing stuff using laws, since we call them criminals in the first place because they seemingly have little reverence for laws.
Fusob demanded payment in redemption codes for iTunes gift cards.