A few flaws in your arguments. 1. So what about all the other central banks that have been fairly stable for generations and have done fairly well in their sta

A few flaws in your arguments. 1. So what about all the other central banks that have been fairly stable for generations and have done fairly well in their stated goals? 2. Civil asset forfeiture isn't a banking issue. And you're naive if you think police can't seize a bitcoin wallet. The government has already done that http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/bitcoin_seized_by_the_u_s_government_during_an_arrest_can_be_sold_a_judge.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/bitcoin_s... Most users aren't going to practice the ideal security to prevent their crypto-currency for being seized. We know this because we have decades of experience knowing how careless and cavalier users are towards digital security. The currency isn't going to do it for them, so it's not a feature. Period. 3. When Bitcoin is shockingly volatile, so much so that you have to compare it with one of the worst failing economies in the world to make it seem less bad, well, that's a compelling argument. Call me up when there's a serious challenge to something like the USD or EUR. 4. Bitcoin is an interesting experiment. And under ideal conditions could address some issues you've mentioned. But conditions aren't ideal, it appears to be a mess really. Governments can still seize bitcoin. Governments can still regulate it. Half the things you tout have fallen flat on it's face and the other half certainly don't outweigh the glaringly obvious faults. But hey, if you get in at the right moment, cha-ching. Which begs the question, you now hold $10 million USD in bitcoin, how many millions do you convert into banknotes or digital numbers in a computerized bank account to protect your wealth from the volatility?