You can make an argument against the asset itself and it’s utility. But parent was arguing that the fact early adopters captured a majority of the gains makes Bitcoin evil doesn’t make sense to me. I’m happy that crypto nerds won this time over the usual suspects of VCs, family funds, etc.
What value has Bitcoin et al brought anyone other than earning them "profit" because they were earlier in the Pyramid-Ponzi scheme - or at a low point before price went up and sold before the bubble(s) popped?
Ok, I'm not a huge fan of the crypto craze, but ignoring providing a solution to the problem of trust in decentralized networks and implementing a working payment network on top of that is just a blatant ignorance.
The solution is massively unelegant and unlikely to be worth so much long-term as markets are predicting now, but it definitely does provide some tangible value and it's pretty stupid to imply otherwise.
Simply asking for what value has Bitcoin et al provided isn't the same as a statement that states it doesn't cover some areas of value, however pros existing doesn't necessarily negate the cons - doesn't mean there's a net benefit to them existing. Ignoring that a solution for 'trust in decentralized networks' can't be solved in other ways, like normal real-life trust networks, where people make a decision of who they trust for this vs. having "blind trust" is in fact blatant ignorance.
