Lambie is actually on the ball here. Bitcoin's best use case is illicit transactions. It's a tool to reduce the power states have over their subjects. The overhead involved only makes sense if you can't rely on a central power to keep people in line.
IOW, if you're fine with how the political process works in your jurisdiction, and see no need to curtail the economic powers of the state, I don't see what good Bitcoin is to you apart from speculating on the price. I doubt it's actually more efficient than VISA all things considered, for example.
It's good for all the things IBM, Intel, etc are trying to do with their closed ledger (especially if they add ethereum to the mix).
Besides, trades don't have to be illicit in order to reduce the power of the states.
... You don't have to buy drugs or finance terrorism with your coins. If you buy coins from a regulated exchange and sell them at a regulated exchange, and don't screw up in between, you're good. ...
Like saying "you don't have to counterfeit these hundred-dollar bills I drew with a box of crayons."
The point is, if [bad] people
can transact outside of (vetted) exchanges, they
will.
If there's
no need to transact outside of (vetted) exchanges, there's no reason to burn so much electricity in Chinese chicken coops to keep a ridiculous POW scheme running.
So what?
IBM and JP Morgan won't be held accountable for what other bad people do with Bitcoin, just like they won't be held accountable for when LMGTFY is snorting flour he bought with USD from a mirror.
But they will be held accountable for every little thing that happens on that closed ledger.