> If you agree that Bitcoin is just as useless as videogames, and agree that videogames are not useless, you must also agree that Bitcoin is not useless.
Seems you missed that he disagreed on the first part. At least I read his "and videogames are useful because of this, and this, and ..." as saying that "as opposed to Bitcoin, videogames are useful because ..."
And, TBH, I've seen no proof of that first part.
> you must also agree that Bitcoin is not useless.
Why must I?
> Turns out many people do, since running it is profitable.
Being profitable doesn't make it useful.
Yes, it was. If you agree that Bitcoin is just as useless as videogames, and agree that videogames are not useless, you must also agree that Bitcoin is not useless.
I personally have no use for videogames, but I don't deny that many people do. I do, however, have use for an extremely resilient distributed timestampping service that takes several countries' energy to disrupt (which is what Bitcoin's blockchain is -- a public timestampping service). Turns out many people do, since running it is profitable.