I'm not the biggest Bitcoin fan, but this article is dumb. I'm not a Bitcoin "believer" in that I don't believe the modern Bitcoiner's dogma. But many newcome

I'm not the biggest Bitcoin fan, but this article is dumb. I'm not a Bitcoin "believer" in that I don't believe the modern Bitcoiner's dogma. But many newcomers don't know the history: a significant number of early Bitcoin engineers have moved on to other projects (like Ethereum) that better align with some of Bitcoin's early goals, such as a cash alternative and an accessible economic cypherpunk system. There are many cryptocurrency projects that are less dogmatic and more pragmatic. >"Is Bitcoin money? No." While I appreciate the upfrontness, the problem with this mentality is failing to conceive how the technology itself can easily overcome these minor criticism. >"1. Medium of Exchange." Even if Bitcoin isn't, which you'd need a very narrow definition, Eth easily overcomes this argument. Eth has functional, successful, trustless, and distributed stable assets that serve as stable priced mediums of exchange. I don't see how other cryptocurrencies aren't money even if Bitcoin isn't, which also undermines the intent of the article. >"2. Unit of Account. ... We denominate BTC in terms of how many USD they’re worth, so BTC is not a unit of account presently." That is severely ignorant and makes it obvious that the author has spent superficial time in the space. I cannot think of a charting tool that doesn't allow denomination in at least one other cryptocurrency. The Eth community refers to "the ratio" (denomination in Bitcoin or other assets) constantly. > 3. Store of Value. See point 1. This is a solved problem.