> Can you really say with a strait face that you think BTC's volatility is worse than literally losing your bank account with all it's content?!
Ask Luna holders for their opinion on this matter, it seems they experienced pretty much the same thing (or holders of any other crashed cryptocoin). Bitcoin itself might not be down 100%, but it also lost a serious amount of value in the last half year. Plus, there are a lot of ways to completely loose your bitcoin, be it hardware failure or scams.
So yes, I can say with a pretty straight face that Bitcoin is not a great protection against volatility, which is what the original comment claimed.
Imagine if money didn't exist at all and we invented it today. It would be such an enormous technological game changer its value would change very very rapidly as we're going from zero to a huge "market cap" very quickly.
Imagine a pool. If you fill it with a lot of water rapidly, there's going to be a lot of turbulence. Doesn't mean that in the long run, as it gets filled, it won't settle down.
The volatility argument doesn't consider the fact that it's gone from zero to something big players and states invest in in 13 years. And that frankly it was not good enough to be digital cash but it's getting there. That's bound to cause a lot of turbulence.
>the average fiat currency has a lifespan of roughly half your life expectancy (37yr irrc).
Just like our products, fiat currencies have planned obsolescence and limited lifespans, this is because permanent money is a fantasy that cannot exist in the real world. Almost nothing in the real economy is permanent, not even humans.
If you want a currency that lasts forever it will have to not only have children, it will also have to be able to die like humans.
Can you really say with a strait face that you think BTC's volatility is worse than literally losing your bank account with all it's content?!
People who live in places like the US forget that the average fiat currency has a lifespan of roughly half your life expectancy (37yr irrc).