1) Let’s first define the scope. What is the cryptocurrency referred to in the article? Is it just Bitcoin in a narrow sense, or all cryptocurrencies, including various altcoins that have run away?

Assuming that you are on the affirmative side and the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, then one of the reasons for the other party to fight back against you must be to expand the scope of cryptocurrencies and attribute the losses of the absconded altcoins to cryptocurrencies.

Take the altcoins that have run away as an example. Fraud gangs use altcoins to make money. Cryptocurrency is used as a tool here. Tools only have the attribute of "good or bad", not the attribute of "pros and cons". If it is not cryptocurrency, the same bad guys will switch to other tools, such as p2p, national assets, etc. So this itself has little to do with cryptocurrencies, and this account cannot be attributed to cryptocurrencies.

Furthermore, scammers cannot put up a sign saying that this is a cryptocurrency and then it is a cryptocurrency. Everyone knows how to put up a sign. It might just be a string of characters in a single database.

The cryptocurrency referred to in the following text refers only to Bitcoin in a narrow sense.

2) Bitcoin is a new thing. All new things are born to solve old problems. In the process of solving them, new drawbacks are discovered, which then need to be repaired and continuously optimized before they can be completely solved. This is the universal law that new things are spirally rising.

For beautiful things, the pros and cons are not the key to analysis, but faith is. It is inherently unequal to analyze the future from the perspective of the real world. Due to its decentralization and anonymity, Bitcoin definitely has more disadvantages in the real world. This may be the so-called field problem, not the point of view.

Regarding this point, some people do not understand why it is not equal to analyze the future from the perspective of the real world. Here is an example so that you can understand. For example, the theme of this debate is to analyze an event that happened in history or an object that has appeared in the past. In that case, the pros and cons are equal because both sides can stand in the same reality. But if the subject of your debate is a new thing, then the side that is biased towards new things in the future is definitely not equal. The only way to win is to use imagination and the other party's understanding ability. You can pull out controversial things or events in history and assume that you can travel back in time. What kind of analysis can you make at that point in history.

If we have to talk about the benefits, then from the original intention of Bitcoin, the original intention of Bitcoin is to issue a decentralized electronic currency, but so far few centralized countries have adopted it. Countries like Zimbabwe and Venezuela, whose national currencies are no longer competent, have to adopt Bitcoin, which can be regarded as saving them and giving these countries an additional choice in times of crisis. These countries, together with the legendary Liberland and Japan, can be regarded as sparks.

From the perspective of its birth, the technological byproduct of Bitcoin, blockchain, has been applied to different fields, and blockchain is about to change the world, at least in name and in mainstream media. Is this considered a "benefit" of cryptocurrencies?