> If you look through the history of amazing scientific breakthroughs, I suspect you'll find that the ones that legitimately changed the world didn't require ar

> If you look through the history of amazing scientific breakthroughs, I suspect you'll find that the ones that legitimately changed the world didn't require armies of self-proclaimed experts to explain to everyone what the benefit is and what problems it solves. However, when you look through the history of snake oil, boom-and-bust market crashes, and actual Ponzi schemes, that's exactly what you find. Funny how you carefully avoided making any solid points here. Let's assume what we all know you're saying - Bitcoin, if it was legitimate, would not require shills in order to be successful. Since Bitcoin is fully capable of securing $1 trillion dollars worth of value (unhackable despite the massive prize) I would say its had some success. Are there many shills around for Bitcoin today? Yes. What does that have to do with its success or value? Even further obliterating the point you were too scared to make directly: the initial momentum which got Bitcoin started and gave the protocol its security which gave it that aforementioned success in security was grassroots and based in technological and academic interest. This is very clearly spelled in the blog post. Did you read the content before forming your thoughts about it? You might as well have not. Embarrassing.