When Stieglitz said: it doesn't serve any socially useful function he was saying that in relation to: bitcoin is successful only because of its potential

When Stieglitz said: it doesn't serve any socially useful function he was saying that in relation to: bitcoin is successful only because of its potential for circumvention, lack of oversight So what he's really saying is that circumvention and lack of oversight are not socially useful functions. I'm no fan of bitcoin and I'm a huge Stieglitz fan but I'm going to disagree with him there. Privacy (lack of oversight) is a socially useful function. However, bitcoin only gives the appearance of privacy while giving the reality of lack of oversight.