That is completely stupid given the existence of other secure digital cash systems that support offline payments. Go implement Chaum's work if you do not trust banks to facilitate transactions, and you'll get a more secure and more robust currency at a lower energy cost than Bitcoin.

There are no other digital cash system "secure" from manipulation by authorities (ie. none are decentralized). This includes Chaum's DigiCash.

You are using "secure" to mean something very different. No monetary system, not even Bitcoin, is secure from market manipulation.

Anonymity and security against double spending are properties of Chaum's system, and are extremely questionable when it comes to Bitcoin.

Well DigiCash failed. Bitcoin is succeeding. That speaks of itself as to which system (Chaum's or decentralized proof-of-work) is better designed...

By "secure" I meant secure from governments seizing accounts, financial companies restricting transferts, etc. Not secure from price manipulation.

"Well DigiCash failed. Bitcoin is succeeding. That speaks of itself as to which system is better designed..."

Really, you think that success in the market is indicative of a system having a better design? You must not be paying attention to the market then, or to the forces that affect the market. Better designed products and systems fail where their poorly designed competitors succeed all the time.

"By "secure" I meant secure from governments seizing accounts, financial companies restricting transferts, etc."

That's nice, but I doubt you would use Bitcoin if there were easy double spending attacks.

How do you explain DigiCash's failure then?

I do use Bitcoin. I have been for 2+ years. I do so because I trust its design. I do not believe it is easy to double spend bitcoins. Yesterday's chain fork is an extremely rare and short-lived event.

Perhaps, but this is a question that you can't even begin to answer without quantifying both sides of the equation.