Interestingly, the original bitcoin white-paper had a motivating example that basically amounted to side-stepping banks, because banks do not provide fully non-reversible transactions. In essence, bitcoin was a technological solution to a problem which would have been solved more elegantly by changing financial laws, and requiring banks to offer non-reversible transactions. (the problem with that is obviously that it could be used for fraud, but then you get into the whole debate about freedom vs protection)

> In essence, bitcoin was a technological solution to a problem which would have been solved more elegantly by changing financial laws, and requiring banks to offer non-reversible transactions.

Ahh, this may explain why I don't see how cryptocurrency is a good thing. I consider the fact that banks do not allow fully non-reversible transactions as a very strongly desirable feature, not a bug to be done away with.

And I think this is a very valid viewpoint. Clearly, many people think the same, otherwise we'd already have non-reversible transactions in the conventional banking system.

I mean, yes. If you read the bitcoin paper it very clearly talks about what problems it is trying to solve, so this shouldn't come as a surprise.

Whether or not it is useless really depends how much you value independence from a central authority (i was originally going to say anonoyminity, but if you only care about anonoyminity, digicash is a much better solution than bitcoin)