The headlines are practically always either about centralized bank-like exchanges that hold crypto on behalf of others losing it, or about people losing money they put into a badly-written Ethereum contract. The number of situations that people lost properly-handled cryptocurrency (they didn't send it to the wrong address, they had a backup, and they used a hardware wallet or malware-free computer) with a mainstream client have been practically non-existent.

You realize the user hostile nature of basically all crypto currencies is not a feature right?

"You should have a backup and double-check the address you send to" is a user-hostile high bar? I mean, maybe for non-technical people, but I'm not exactly recommending bitcoin or any cryptocurrency to them. Something can have its uses without having to be everything to everyone.

The comment I was replying to was saying we need to replace banks with crypto. The user hostility is one reason why that's nowhere near happening.

What a fallacy of equivocation, cryptocurrency codebases and the exchanges they trade on are not the same thing. It would be like saying: marijuana and the cartels and killing any people every year!

I didn't equivocate them, I listed them both individually. Didn't seem like a hard sentence to parse to me?