None of your points are technical critiques. Sufficiently restrictive governments have had little trouble enforcing bans against end to end encryption or enforc

None of your points are technical critiques. Sufficiently restrictive governments have had little trouble enforcing bans against end to end encryption or enforcing internet restrictions for the vast majority of the population either. Computer code will never protect you from a bullet to the head. The lesson here is that technological solutions are not a replacement for politics and real-world power struggles. They can however be a tool. > How is this even close to true. There are multiple exchanges right now that have locked up people’s money and don’t allow them to access it. There is nothing wrong with the existence of custodied services, but - give your money to someone else and you are relying on them (and the legal system) to get it back. So what? > Cryptocurrency is banned in China and is basically inactive there. How did it evade censorship? > To the extent it’s “censorship proof” in some areas right now is because the censoring entities simply don’t give a shit about it. It is guaranteed that there are Chinese citizens holding and transacting in crypto everyday. To confiscate these assets or to block these transactions poses certain challenges to authorities. This is what the decidedly non-garbage tech ensures. It is also challenging to find individuals who have USD under their mattress, which is why cash is extremely useful and civil libertarians should fight for its survival. > USD requires only 1 side to have gone through a much easier process to acquire it. Whereas crypto requires both sides to go through it. Note that this is not correct. Wallet-creation is not a physical action; a wallet is merely a sufficiently random number you pick for yourself, in your head if necessary.