Are you really going to try to argue that you are less likely to get scammed or hacked with Bitcoin than with a traditional bank?
Try sending $1B around the world to your Nigerian uncle and seeing what happens.
Nothing they can do to stop that.
I'm sad that I have to inform you that the emails you've been getting aren't actually real
The need to move such funds anonymously is usually due to illegal activities, money laundering, or at least tax evasion (evasion, not avoidance).
This leaves every average person at the very least, on the hook to pay for those taxes evaded, or lacking the services they would have provided.
If the need is due to criminality beyond tax evasion, every average person suffers the corrosive effect of that criminal activity (e.g., while I'm for most drug legalization, I can't begin to argue that organized criminal drug distribution is anything but a massive destructive tax on society - & in fact, a main point of legalization is to eliminate that corrosive costs of gangs).
So, the average person is definitely worse off with the existence of an ability to move & billions anonymously.
(edit: avoided/evaded)
I fall into that category.
Most people I know, and they aren't rich tax avoiders would also fall into that category.
Cryptocurrency liberates everyone in so many ways. And yes it liberates criminals as well. But hey are know how to dodge the system anyway.
Other than small-scale tax evasion or nefarious activities, what use cases are you advocating?
I also used to be pretty excited about the potential for crypto currencies, still think it may have some, but the security overhead, value volatility, & scalability issues have pretty much rendered it less useful than cash or (ugh) ACH-based services like Venmo, Google Pay, etc., ir just credit cards.
Also, you're not addressing losses of tax evasion - one tax evader failing to pay $1B in taxes means a million people need to pay an extra $1000 to make up for his crime. Not victimless.
2013 called and wants its arguments back
the escrow service would be one party of the multisignature transaction. no party can move the funds on their own. you are moving an arbiter to the point of transaction, instead of after a transaction doesn't go as planned.