> Cars are designed to travel at lethal speeds. If you were reckless and killed someone or yourself, do you also declare it to be an "insanely problematic technology"?
More aptly though, I would declare it problematic if I couldn't drive 10 feet without someone carjacking me in my ostensibly armored car, or if pressing the button on my radio caused the car to explode. I'd call that 'problematic' because if it were my fault, I'd be in jail, and if not, the automaker would be on the wrong end of a huge lawsuit.
You know who we have to thank for their current level of safety? The DOT, NHTSA and legal system.
> The problem here is that people are not aware of the risks associated with cryptocurrencies and so are not taking the required precautions.
He had his coins on probably the only legitimate exchange in all of crypto. He had 2fac. He had 2fac on his gmail. If this isn't sufficient to keep your money protected, we need to stop blaming the victim. He's probably one of the most competent technical individuals owning crypto. If he can't keep it safe how on earth would your grandmother?
> After all, you can be pretty reckless with your credit card numbers or bank login and still be fine, because the finance system has an undo button for everything.
Isn't that awesome? We've recognized people make mistakes and created for them a path to remedy said mistakes. Pretending they don't happen and that it's the victims fault if they do isn't a replacement.
> What if you want to make an irreversible payment.
Wire transfer. You can opt in to irreversibility, it's not the default, and that's completely reasonable IMO.
> ...or want to be able to send money to whomever you want without the government stepping in the way.
AKA breaking the law. Yes, you shouldn't be able to send money to people on the OFAC list, to terrorists, or to sanctioned countries. That's fine with me, and all your fellow citizens. That's why we have those laws. Let's not mince words, "sending money to people the government doesn't want" is financing international terrorism, narcotics trafficking, human trafficking and so on. No, you shouldn't be able to do that.
> ...all while being trustless?
Again, why do you need this without the illegal use cases? Either way PoW cryptos aren't trustless, Beijing has over 80% of the hash power one strongly worded memo away. Decentralized and trustless are not a feature of Bitcoin or most other cryptocurrencies. They are centralized in the PRC. You would give up sovereign control of your money system to the PRC?
> Is there a way to achieve that, and still being able to hit undo when you make a mistake?
No, you shouldn't be able to break the law. An open challenge to all crypto advocates: Provide me one legal use case better suited to cryptocurrency than the US dollar.