Yes, cash is great, but it's pretty clear that most first world governments are trying to get rid of cash. And it's pretty inconvenient, especially since you need to trust the recipient.

Crypto currencies being volatile is not inherent in the technology. You can easily imagine a crypto currency pegged to something like gold, ideally not run by scammers like in the case of tether. The purchase history is also a non-argument, that's not inherent in the concept of a crypto currency.

Also, the problem with inflation is not really volatility as such, it's depreciation. Having a currency that jumps up and down by a factor of 2 like bitcoin in the last year is still better than one that melts away, so if BTC can remain as "stable" as it is now that would be pretty acceptable

> Crypto currencies being volatile is not inherent in the technology

How so? It has no control mechanism to prevent it. I get that the brakes (central banks) don't always work perfectly, but removing them entirely is an odd choice.

> Having a currency that jumps up and down by a factor of 2 like bitcoin in the last year is still better than one that melts away

To whom? When?

> You can easily imagine [...], that's not inherent in the concept of a crypto currency

It's easy to win an argument when you compare a real world system to one that doesn't exist.

We're discussing the technology of crypto currencies, not just the currencies that exist now. It wouldn't be hard to make a utility coin that gives you something real, but virtual, like megabytes of data on your phone plan, domain hosting, virtual goods in games to the value of 1 dollar etc. Such a coin would not be as volatile as one that is untethered from anything tangible, like Bitcoin.

> To whom? When?

To most people. Look at BTC/USD for the last year, and then look at a currency during hyperinflation, that loses 10% a day, every day. Which would you rather hold?

On one side you cherry pick the failures of a system in use, and on the other you tout the benefits of something that could be. Do you see why this is not a fair comparison?

Speaking of cherry picking, the hyperinflation events that you mention happened a few times over centuries, but they happen on a quarterly basis in cryptoland. And somehow that makes crypto better?

How does "everyone" benefit from a massively unstable currency? Who actually desires money that can double and halve in value overnight, and why?

I guess you're replying to the wrong person. I clearly said that for "most people" it's NOT worth it. And I haven't cherry picked any failures in the current system. I'm not a crypto proponent. I don't own any crypto, I'm definitely not saying we should replace dollars with crypto.

> Who actually desires money that can double and halve in value overnight, and why?

As I said twice above, if you live in Zimbabwe, or even Argentina, bitcoin is probably preferable to the state currency. That's really all I'm saying. Technical hyperinflation is not all that common perhaps, but even at 10-20% a month it gets hard.