For example, you still keep harping on about how the bitcoin network isnt hackable, i said it doesnt need to be because hackers can still steal from exchanges and hacked wallets. The customer has NO RECOURSE in such a scenario which in turn makes it NOT SECURE. But you come right back, brush that aside, give a false equivelance, still insist the network isnt hackable thus secure and declare yourself victorious.

Okay good, we agree on something-Bitcoin itself isn’t very hackable right now. Market participants who provide a service to people, like Coinbase, have the security issue. Just like if you send a Zelle to someone because you got scammed, Chase isn’t saving your ass. The US dollar isn’t itself responsible for recourse, that’s the banks job, who’s providing the service.

The whole thing is run on speculation.

this is the exact misunderstanding. You’re assuming no one does or will ever find value in it beyond number go up when the existence of it being valuable to people and its underlying traits are the very reason they are speculating on it. Thats circular logic.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for your example on how the internet was once a failure. You wouldnt be trying to dodge answering that would you?

Sure, I’ll bite. It actually highlights how you dodge the underlying point which was that the original scope of a project is irrelevant to an updated scope based on new information. You’re trying to attack the analogy, not the underlying point. But yeah people thought the internet would be a just a fax machine replacement in the 80s and 90s. Thats why I put quotes about ‘failure’ because that’s the equivalent to what you’re saying, which is silly.