Denying that you're a prepper while rattling off all the hallmarks of a prepper certainly didn't help your case, either. My "fallacious" ad hominem was my way of telling you that I've given up on having anything remotely resembling a rational discussion with you, because you're such a twat.

A prepper by any other name would smell as... oof. Nevermind. I don't really want to think about what you smell like.

The conversation was about trading futures. By definition, that means trading things that don't exist.

Whether you realize it or not, all of the above validates the argument for crypto. You almost certainly don't realize it, because you've just recited what everyone who has been exposed to crypto is already deeply aware of.

Ah. The common prepper. Bummer that you won't be able to watch Fox News when the grid goes down.

Are you aware that the exchanges -- where you can trade crypto for US dollars -- already do implement extensive KYC and anti-money-laundering protocols? No. You're clearly not. And yet you speak as if you know what you're talking about.

I think that, at its core, Bitcoin was intended as an experiment. I wasn't actually there, and I claim no firsthand knowledge, but it seems to me that the intent was to implement some interesting ideas that had never really been tried before, or had never been combined in that way before, to see if currency could be (a) virtual, and (b) decentralized. It was really far out in left field at the time, and it brought forth some ideas that were genuinely novel. It was almost certainly far more successful than its creator(s) ever thought it would be.

That's not to say that Bitcoin is without problems. I could rattle off a long list of issues, and many of those issues are what makes it unsuitable as an actual unit of currency. It is successful in spite of these flaws.

What's really interesting, though, is the general field of cryptocurrency that it spawned. Among the countless crypto copycats, there are some genuinely interesting attempts at reinventing cryptocurrency to solve one or two or many of the fundamental flaws in Bitcoin. Some with more success than others. And those attempts will continue, until someone hits on the right formula -- something that provides genuine utility. It's not really about "Bitcoin" anymore -- that's just the oldest and most well-known version. It's about what comes next that is really interesting.

And by spawning all of those efforts, Bitcoin was clearly a successful experiment.

You know why they call them "futures"? Because it's stuff that doesn't exist yet. So, pretty much the exact opposite of what you just said.

So, then, all your life savings is in cash under a mattress right now? Seriously, how much physical cash can you lay your hands on?

I'll bet it's not even enough to buy a new phone.

And again, that's not an asset. That's just a vague (though widely shared) belief. And shared belief is in fact the underlying mechanism of all fiat currencies.

The reason that sounds exactly like an IOU is because, well, it is.

That's not an asset.

Neither does the US dollar.

Consumers don't care about this "freedom". At all. They primarily want to use whatever websites they need, and secondarily they might be vaguely thinking that it would be nice if their communications were secure. The intricate nuances of certificates are not on that list.

The whole certificate architecture is, IMHO, broken. Putting certificates with limited lifespans onto embedded devices or devices with no hope of ever receiving an update is a sure-fire recipe to increase the flow of devices headed to landfills.

I would spin it differently. Given the opportunity to speak on an interesting subject, Stallman essentially made it all about himself.

Which is, you know, pretty typical.