Cryptography is not an enforceable instance, it is a technique for secure transmission of information. Enforceability in the context of money means that someone if legally forced to provide you with tangible goods on the bases of monetary instrument you own (borrowers in the case of fiat money). When you own crypto numbers nobody is legally forced to provide you something tangible for this numbers, which means that crypto numbers are completely useless and giving away your land, food, car, house or other tangible goods just to have this numbers is worse than the Tulip Craze in the Netherlands where people sold houses for tulips. You are literally throwing away your tangible property just because you believe that others will do the same thing. If that's not crazy than I don't know what is.
Sure, let's take the recent example where some people bought a total of
50 luxury flats from a couple in exchange for bitcoins. Physical, tangible assets traded for some entries in the ledger. By your logic, the couple who sold those dwellings can accept the bitcoin and then simply not give them the flats they paid for, because it's not legally enforceable, right? Except you're wrong, because your arguments clearly fall apart the moment they're exposed to the slightest dose of reality. Those deals are finalised. It all looks pretty enforceable to me.
With Bitcoin you can always
choose to involve legal enforcement and contractual obligations if you desire. You have that
option. If you want to pay some suit to draft a contract every time you transact with Bitcoin to make sure the other person doesn't try to rip you off, have fun paying for that. It's entirely your call. Although, in any example where properties are concerned, obviously that will almost always involve legally binding documents like deeds or lease agreements that have to be signed. But in no way does it mean that every single transaction requires a similar level of bureaucracy and administrative labour for it to work. In other examples of real world purchases, people are paying for their VPNs with Lightning and someone paid their prepaid phone bill too. And standard bitcoin transactions have been used for plenty of purchases over the years. The vast majority of them, funnily enough, not requiring a law firm on retainer to make them happen.
Please, tell us all in your infinite wisdom how they're going to overturn and reclaim that first (now notorious) "Bitcoin Pizza" just because there wasn't a lawyer involved.
Done deals are done. They're not falling through or being disputed just because there isn't a notary, paralegal and judge on standby. In fact, the number of transactions that are disputed, or where claims of scams or other fraudulent activity occur are likely in close proportion with the number of similar reports when using fiat cash. Which makes perfect sense if Bitcoin is cash for the internet. Any deal done as a face-to-face exchange with fiat cash where there's no receipt for the goods in question is
equally as legally unenforceable as Bitcoin.
Are you also warning people about the dangers doing fiat cash interactions without receipts too? One might be tempted to call it hypocrisy if you aren't.
But fine. You stick with your precious nanny state who will happily take ever-increasing proportions of your wealth in exchange for pacifying you, mollycoddling your delicate, pampered ass and making you feel "safe". If you want to spend money out of your pocket to make that compromise, feel free. Everyone here has that choice, to keep some or even most of their total net worth within the traditional sovereign kleptocracy if they so wish. How much you want to risk your exposure to that is entirely up to you. But when the state does eventually screw you, and they will, don't say we didn't warn you. It's their system, you're merely the fuel they burn to keep it running.
