I think the main point is that the decentralization of the whole concept makes it hard for single actors to "hack" the system. Imagine 99% of people agreeing to something and then 1% starts doing otherwise. Of course they will be crushed by the majority. The same goes for 51% vs. 49%.

IMHO I see it as a tool for reaching democratic agreement on anything. The data stored in the blockchain exist only as long as the whole network exist and the majority agrees about the data. It can be basically any type of data!

Also by this logic it could be compromisable by a large enough party. Since the whole existence is based on agreement and 50/50 scenario would only further splice the two groups, each following what they think is the "truth" or "correct".

By no means I'm not an expert on this topic and anyone who has PLEASE correct my if my understanding is skewed. Thanks

Simple - it may be called a "currency" but really it acts more like a stock.

- There are limited ways to convert the bitcoin to USD, much like there are limited ways (brokers) to move money in/out of stocks.

- The exchange/price compared to USD fluctuates wildly. It is not stable like USD - it is more like a volatile stock. BTC was worth $18k on Dec 1 2020 and has gone as high as $63k since then and is now around $32k USD per 1 BTC.

In my opinion, the major limitations to it becoming a stable, usable currency is the volatility and ease of use. You can have all the anonymity and hack proof tech you want but until its easy to use and stable, it won't be adopted widely. Any effort to make it easy to use will likely make it lose the anonymity part. For example if I can now pay at any POS terminal using an app on a phone, there goes anonymity.

A stock is a residual claim on the assets of a business and the cash flows those assets generate. A digital token is an entry in a database that…entitles you to say you have an entry in a database. And it is typically a pretty lousy database in every way but Byzantine fault tolerance.