Of course it should be part of the discussion, but the article seems to think that crypto people are unaware of it. They're not, they just think it's worth it.

It doesn't matter if crypto advocates are aware of it, these arguments are for other people to understand. The argument is well-known because it's incredibly valid and common for people to want protection against those problems of fraud. When people point out that you're not wearing any pants, "uh I know I'm not wearing any pants" doesn't really address the relevant concern.

Of course it does. It's like saying "but Uber doesn't own any cars, they can't run a taxi service". There are pros and cons with their approach, and you might prefer the traditional way, but they purposely chose another way.

Clever reframing, but when you choose such a different way with clear downsides, it's on you to justify it. It would have been the responsibility of the founders of Uber to explain to stakeholders why they were justified in running a taxi service without owning cars. Just like if I point out that you're not wearing pants, I'm generally expecting the response to explain why that's justified for me to continue standing next to an apparently pantless lunatic instead of telling me that you already have.

There's no part of the article that ever said crypto people aren't aware of this problem, it pointed out the problem. It's a problem. "I have intentionally chosen a path that runs into this glaring problem" is not helpful or interesting at all. If you have nothing more to say beyond "they know", then I guess I don't have anything more to say either.

I think they have been pretty clear about what they think the upside is: decentralisation. No need to trust banks and governments.

Obviously you don't think it's a good trade-off, but they do.