I think an interesting feature of defences of cryptocurencies is that they are similar in their composition as a block chain. In a block chain you have a crypto

I think an interesting feature of defences of cryptocurencies is that they are similar in their composition as a block chain. In a block chain you have a cryptographically secure summary of the previous block in your current block - but you don't actually know what's in that previous block. Similarly in the arguments defending cryptocurrencies at the top of the article you have the description of the advantages of cryptocurrencies, but the later blocks of text hold no real understanding of what the previous blocks of text meant. So yes, blockchains are incredible because they solve "trust". No, it's not a problem that we can't reverse transactions because we can just have trusted intermediaries. Yes, Blockchains inherently get their robustness from an incredibly wasteful algorithm. No it's not a problem they're inefficient because we're actually just going to do everything off-chain. No, it's not a contradiction for my defence of cryptocurrencies to advocate for not using them. Ok, so I've been a bit snarky here, but the core of what I want to say is this: It is very difficult to read about the compromises made to achieve practical uses of crypto and still have the view that there's any of the original value proposition left. I think the best cryptocurrency defence is just "We've got a lot of smart people trying new things and maybe something of value will end up being created". That's about as compelling as you can get.