To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the intent behind the article, I just think the execution is exceptionally poor. If you're going to argue against somethin

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the intent behind the article, I just think the execution is exceptionally poor. If you're going to argue against something, make your arguments compelling (your comment's first point is, the author's wasn't). On your second & third points: 2: Improving tech over time is good. Creating perfect tech on day 1 isn't realistic. The early internet was built on a lot of tech we no longer use (or are a attempting to move away from) 3: The "I already have gold but no bitcoin in a time of crisis" qualifier seems odd and contrived. Gold is a resource valued for its scarcity, Bitcoin is an attempt to move away from artificial scarcity of fiat to mathematically guaranteed scarcity. Ultimately they share problems: mining of physical goods is environmentally destructive and tying economic prosperity to inflating resource value based on scarcity instead of utility is also ultimately problematic for society in the long term. So the analogy does work -they're fundamentally very comparable. The primary differentiators are (a) the scale of cryptomining is greater per-unit than for physical resources (+ transactional impact), and (b) Bitcoin's got a whole load of extra bad problems that gold doesn't: e.g. instability.