Given bitcoin's vast energy consumption, the "production" of bitcoins produces enough pollution to be responsible for a significant number of deaths, amortized. [1]
Thus I have zero sympathy with those who may lose money here.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/shermanlee/2018/04/19/bitcoins-...
How do you feel about the aggregate energy consumption of all Candy Crush games being played (servers, network, phones, PCs, monitors)?
What about all the energy used to grow, harvest, produce, transport and distribute alcoholic drinks?
For that matter, what about all distributed energy used by Twitter, including all clients, data centers, network routers, corporate offices, etc (where few tweets communicate something worthwhile to an actual human)?
Bitcoin seems especially heinous because it a group of moderately well-off folks burning a truly vast amount of energy essentially for the purpose of getting more wealth than, say, non-bitcoin owners.
And given that unbridled energy consumption currently promises local and global disasters on an increasing scale, this particular use of energy especially outrageous.
Does that explain things?
Bitcoin is old tech. But there is some pretty cool stuff out there, if you care to look.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/7ucw1a/the_en...
The US suspended the gold standard to enter WWI. The US suspend bitcoin trading if it somehow did interfere with it's ability to make war.
No better way to validate it's usefulness than to ban it when you feel the pressure of competition.
But I think your argument is fundamentally incorrect. We had plenty of wars with gold backed currencies and we'd still have war if cryptocurrencies took over.
On the other hand, there are people making trillions of dollars by literally being engaged in murder-business that is war racketeering. And there is lots of "normal" and "common" people involved, from the politicians, to engineers, and all the way to the top, all the while, military men and women are worshiped as heroes.