- Each Bitcoin transaction is a zero-sum game -- one party benefits to the same extent that the other does not benefit. So one party is guaranteed always to be fine with the volatility. And neither party knows for sure (or at all) who that beneficiary will be.
Both parties benefit the same only in the exact moment in time that the transaction occurs. After that moment one party benefits more than the other. That's a fact, and due to that fact the timing of the transaction is very much an issue for both parties.
- The purchaser of a bitcoin has still spent the same amount of fiat no matter what the volatility after the purchase.
No, I believe you have that opposite. Volatility after the purchase doesn't keep the purchaser from worrying about the issue that is the investment's volatility.
- The premise that the aggrieved party could have done this or that instead of send someone a bitcoin that later appreciated in value has no more merit than to say that that party could have bought a stock or bond that later did well too. In each case, they simply did not have the information needed in time. Shoulda coulda woulda is not a valid argument.
Ok, ok, it's a sunk cost.
- If Bitcoin were impractical as a currency, the dark web would not use it. There would be no Bitcoin-using dark web.
Are you kidding? The dark web existed long before bitcoin. Bitcoin's practicality is strongest as an investment.