The title of the article doesn't match the content. The tile suggests the article will talk about the white paper specifically. It instead talks about what Bit

The title of the article doesn't match the content. The tile suggests the article will talk about the white paper specifically. It instead talks about what Bitcoin got right/wrong in general. The white paper says nothing about specific hash functions, signature schemes, scripting systems (not even mentioned at all), currency units, and many other things that ended up being important to Bitcoin. And one of the things the white paper got wrong was to conflate chain "length" with "strength". The white paper appears to mix the two terms, even though it's clear that chain "length" wouldn't work at all as a security mechanism. You can see examples right in the abstract: > The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. Chain "strength" is the cumulative hash power behind a particular chain, which is not the same as the number of blocks. The white paper later corrects itself: > The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it.