> There has yet to be a usecase for distributed ledger that isn't solved better by a centralised ledger
what about situations where centralized ledgers won't serve you? e.g. someone who wants to buy drugs, or sex workers want to get paid. And you mention "niche counter-culture solutions" but I don't think it's so niche - in 2002, the government of Argentina stole 2/3rds of everyone's savings by forcibly converting their dollar-denominated bank accounts into pesos at a terrible exchange rate. Not having to worry about this because you have a trustworthy government is nice, but it puts you into an elite class of your own.
What you're talking about, resistance to government meddling, is more of a function of the currency than the ledger. Cryptocurrencies only work because of people silly enough to buy them in exchange for actual "valuable" or official currencies (which can be imposed on some people in the world at gunpoint). If a cryptocurrency was forced on you at gunpoint, it most certainly would not be one that provided any anonymity.
Do cryptocurrencies provide value to people living in third-rate hellhole countries? Perhaps, because they are connected to the outside world. Ideally you could just have a foreign bank account that your country cannot touch. If the big governments gang up on crypto exchanges, then crypto will be worthless. The only reason they don't gang up on the exchanges seems to be that they (the people in government) use crypto for nefarious activities and money laundering.
The technological innovations of cryptocurrencies make for good thought experiments or puzzles, but serve as a distraction from their inevitable uselessness.
I can’t really think of a better, more concise pitch for cryptocurrencies than “ideally you could just have a foreign bank account that your country cannot touch.”
I'm sure you forgot that your country can send a uniformed guy to seize said foreign bank account on a whim. Or you think you'd keep it for long, while being roughed (or simply stored) in a dark cellar?
You are misinterpreting his comment. He is saying that the idea that you need to store your money in a foreign bank account to keep it safe is an argument in favor of cryptocurrency, because that way you don’t need to rely on a foreign bank at all.
> serve as a distraction from their inevitable uselessness
I don’t understand your point. You said that crypto is only useful as long as governments use it for nefarious purposes and money laundering — so basically it’s a guaranteed relevancy in the future, no? How is that inevitable uselessness?
>You said that crypto is only useful as long as governments use it for nefarious purposes and money laundering — so basically it’s a guaranteed relevancy in the future, no? How is that inevitable uselessness?
It's hard to say how long those nefarious purposes will be tolerated. There may come a time when the governments of the world don't even have to pretend to not be doing nefarious shit. At that point, cryptocurrencies will only be a thorn in their side, and will be under heavy attack.
what about situations where centralized ledgers won't serve you? e.g. someone who wants to buy drugs, or sex workers want to get paid. And you mention "niche counter-culture solutions" but I don't think it's so niche - in 2002, the government of Argentina stole 2/3rds of everyone's savings by forcibly converting their dollar-denominated bank accounts into pesos at a terrible exchange rate. Not having to worry about this because you have a trustworthy government is nice, but it puts you into an elite class of your own.