Lots of people are focusing on this quote: "First of all, I admit, I don't totally understand the bitcoin algorithms and systems. I don't really need to." And s

Lots of people are focusing on this quote: "First of all, I admit, I don't totally understand the bitcoin algorithms and systems. I don't really need to." And saying it somehow invalidates his theories. I disagree. I don't need to be an expert in a field to know that experts aren't correct 100% of the time. Even in Mathematics, which is a pretty logical place that depends on proofs, Mathematicians are sometimes wrong about things. So it makes sense, in a "meta" view, to talk about "what if they're wrong". The op's point (in that part of the article) is that if there's a problem with the algorithms, and there are almost always problems, then we'd be worse off because of the digital nature. You can be as annoyed as you like that the op is basically saying "I don't understand what you're doing, but you probably made a mistake somewhere", but that happens to be true.