It's strange how much vitriol the author spends against "Blockchain" while being dismissive of its technical merits. In short, I agree -- Blockchain is not the

It's strange how much vitriol the author spends against "Blockchain" while being dismissive of its technical merits. In short, I agree -- Blockchain is not the end-all and be-all. It's a natural evolution of the idea of git (and its predecessors) of using a one-sided Merkle tree to compactly store an unforgeable chain of information. But let's take the word "blockchain" out of this. Is the claim really, "Cryptocurrencies aren't about democracy and decentralisation -- they're about greed."? I mean, the set of cryptocurrencies isn't a short story, they're not "about" anything. So let's assume that we're talking about cryptocurrency supporters. "All cryptocurrency supporters are not interested in democracy and decentralisation -- they're just greedy". Okay, better, but let's get rid of absolutes. "Many cryptocurrency supporters are not interested in democracy and decentralisation -- they're just greedy". Okay, now I think we have a statement that is likely true, but is so bland as to be meaningless. His testimony to the Senate [1] makes a lot of similar points, but the one that I find most annoying because I don't know how an economist can say it, is the line about bitcoin being deflationary: > That means if a steady- state supply of Bitcoin really did gradually replace a fiat currency, the price index of all goods and services would continuously fall. This statement, along with so many others talking about Bitcoin is exactly equivalent to saying that "Bitcoin will always increase in value". I'm as big a fan of the potential of Bitcoin as the next person, but even I find this to be ridiculous. [1] https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Roubini%20Testimony%2010-11-18.pdf https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Roubini%20Testi...