This article is better than Mr. Srinivasan's, but as with Balaji's piece, I find it frustrating that little of it is really relevant to the question of whether or not Bitcoin is a good thing for the world. Mr. Green pokes holes in the tactics of Bitcoin evangelists, which is all well and good but ultimately beside the point; he suggests …
This article is better than Mr. Srinivasan's, but as with Balaji's piece, I find it frustrating that little of it is really relevant to the question of whether or not Bitcoin is a good thing for the world. Mr. Green pokes holes in the tactics of Bitcoin evangelists, which is all well and good but ultimately beside the point; he suggests that we should be worried that certain countries hostile to the West are heavily involved in Bitcoin, but never tells us what exactly they could do to harm us with their Bitcoin processing power. I agree with him that the starry-eyed utopianism of writers like Mr. Srinivasan (which strongly reminds me of the silly techno-libertarian idealists of the '90s) is highly clueless, but I don't feel he's really made a strong argument here as to why Bitcoin is actually a danger rather than merely another silly fad.
This article is better than Mr. Srinivasan's, but as with Balaji's piece, I find it frustrating that little of it is really relevant to the question of whether or not Bitcoin is a good thing for the world. Mr. Green pokes holes in the tactics of Bitcoin evangelists, which is all well and good but ultimately beside the point; he suggests that we should be worried that certain countries hostile to the West are heavily involved in Bitcoin, but never tells us what exactly they could do to harm us with their Bitcoin processing power. I agree with him that the starry-eyed utopianism of writers like Mr. Srinivasan (which strongly reminds me of the silly techno-libertarian idealists of the '90s) is highly clueless, but I don't feel he's really made a strong argument here as to why Bitcoin is actually a danger rather than merely another silly fad.