The point of bitcoin is that you can drive across the country "carrying" $1B worth of assets, and if you get pulled over by the cops it won't be found. Try doing that with gold bars or stacks of cash.
Bitcoin is harder to seize under civil asset forfeiture.
ETA: in the US. Not sure about other countries.
More people have lost money to Bitcoin scams and exchange fraud (see e.g. Mt Gox) than have lost their money to civil forfeiture. Depending on the price of Bitcoin, but (based on the current price of Bitcoin) more $$$ has been lost to crypto fraud as well.
Savings accounts (and checking accounts) are regulated very different from investment accounts.
Well, Mt. Gox and Bitcoin? Not even remotely the same thing.
Can you please back this statement up with some citations for this? I'd be hugely surprised if the number of victims, or even the USD value, of BTC related fraud or foolishness outnumbered state sanctioned theft in the USA, considering how lucrative the theft is for the state, without any need for laundering the ill-gained funds either.
At the same time, it would be remarkable if more people lost money, or more money was lost, in BTC than through civil forfeiture, and possibly an ironic statement that exploiting foolishness is the quickest way to riches, rather than deploying state sanctioned violence.
One reason is that banks will refuse to open an account for people whose records show past behavior they don't like (bouncing checks, overdrawing accounts, leaving fees unpaid, etc.).
Some other people could open a bank account but have practical reasons not to. For example, identity theft. Someone drained all your accounts, but you still have a good-paying job. If you open another account, maybe they will drain that one too? Maybe not a good risk to take when you're trying to stabilize your situation.
Another example, probably more common, is poor people who have court judgments against them from people they owe money to. You have medical debt, or you got evicted and owe back rent, or you messed up withholding and you owe the IRS back taxes. You might be living so close to the brink that your monthly income is $1500 and you need $1499 to survive. The court lets the creditor garnish money from your account, so one day you check the balance and find $500 gone, and you can't pay your rent or buy gas to drive to work. So you prevent that scenario by dealing entirely in cash and not opening an account.
Your example isn't about Bitcoin, it's about third parties.
Far more $$$ has been lost to third parties than to Bitcoin.
The US? Random example: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/the-dea-seized-her...
>Don't you think we need trusted authorities for enforcement?
Perhaps, but not everyone is lucky to live in a low corruption country.
Your account can be frozen and confiscated with little recourse.
Let assume the person is in China. Or Venezuela.
Perhaps it will be one day be moved and utilized by family descendants, whom have had time to find themselves in safer conditions.
That's the difference.
Authoritarian countries can always simply block their citizens' access to exchanges, and even just outlaw crypto ownership.
Even if its outlawed, that only slows it down at scale. People will still accept it if it has value. Drugs/prostitution/contraband can be traded even in the places where it is most strictly punished, outlawing it does nothing.
In lots of countries this is not guaranteed. Most recent example is Venezuela, central authorities imposed limited withdrawals.
With crypto, the only way the govt is doing that is if they coerce you. Try that with a "bank account".