I understand the convenience of skirting AML regulations when sending money. I'm saying that's not a real use-case because it's going to go away when government and regulatory bodies crack down on it.
I've been hearing that for 10 years. From a purely compliance/surveillance viewpoint, government authorities tend to prefer Bitcoin over cash, because they can monitor and run all sorts of analytics on the Bitcoin blockchain, which is not 100% anonymous, but merely pseudonymous. Compare this to cash transactions which are offline, untraceable. If you asked me to bet whether most democracies would crack down and ban Bitcoin within the next few decades, I'd confidently say "not going to happen".
Agree to disagree on this point. I cannot imagine a reality where governments (democratic or undemocratic) will allow tax evasion, money laundering, and terrorism funding to just happen because "they can monitor and run all sorts of analytics on the Bitcoin blockchain".
Are you kidding me?
>If people thought a little beyond their personal use cases, they would understand the utility of Bitcoin/crypto for many others.
What use case is that? Skirting AML regulations? You think governments will allow that?