> I don't think protection against human-factor scams and frauds was ever a goal, you certainly never hear it as an argument. I don't think this argument is no

> I don't think protection against human-factor scams and frauds was ever a goal, you certainly never hear it as an argument. I don't think this argument is nonsensical. It's true that these things were not goals. The author's point, I think, is that obviously they should have been. Because this is how people lose money. You can't just call all the most important aspects of monetary transfers "out of scope" if you're trying to create a system for monetary transfers. > Clearly people feel [the loss of reversal] is a price worth paying. I don't think so. I think the vast majority of even pro-bitcoin people are actually either in the camp of not realizing the full meaning of this, or they don't truly understand that there's no recourse, until it actually happens to them. Certainly people in general expect "the bank" or "the police" or "courts" to "just fix it". If cryptocurrency people were honest about this in their MLM pitches then people would tell them to piss off. > It can be used for storing and (slowly) transferring value in a decentralised way, and that is really the main idea. Well, "store of value" is the idea now, now that the initial plan proved a massive failure.