I've seen similar arguments like this before, which of course have their own set of counter-points from the other side of the debate. Both sides are unverifiabl

I've seen similar arguments like this before, which of course have their own set of counter-points from the other side of the debate. Both sides are unverifiable because they're trying to predict the behaviour of complex interacting systems. We're in the middle of a big experiment and the only way to know for sure who is right is to wait and observe. I won't bother to respond to his core argument because it has been countered plenty of times before and as I said above it's ultimately a pointless endeavour to debate, but I did want to pick out what I found to be the most egregious part. > Bitcoin was a phenomenal first attempt, just like Blockbuster was amazing while it lasted. But to think that we nailed it on the first try is crazy. I cannot think of a single piece of technology that hasn’t been improved for the better over time. Would you prefer to use a computer from 1988? A tablet from 2014? A car from 1932? Would you attempt to fly across the Atlantic ocean in the first airplane ever made? Of course not. Technology gets better with time. Period. This is an outstandingly poor take from someone who clearly doesn't know the history of "e-money" or understand the core promise of Bitcoin, and is a common argument by "crypto defi bros". The first, but lesser problem is that... no, Bitcoin isn't the first attempt at "digital money". The whitepaper specifically references previous attempts, why they failed, and how Bitcoin addresses those shortcomings. Bitcoin was just the first, arguably, successful attempt. The second, but more significant problem is that the author thinks "crypto" is the new technology that's just starting out and being evolved here. Perhaps it is in a way, but that's missing the point. The technology been evolved here is almost as old as civilization itself. Money. Money has an incredibly long history of evolution through various technologies from stones on the island of Yap, shells, cloth, glass beads, ledgers, and yes, gold and other metals. In the modern age we saw paper certificates appear as IOUs for gold, then this link was severed in 1971 by Nixon, we saw the emergence of credit cards and e-commerce which all come with their various advantages and disadvantages. So framing Bitcoin as the "first" of a new technology is recently and historically... wrong. There's also the argument that the design space of money is limited. Bitcoin arguably fills in the final properties of money that needed to be improved on from gold (salability across space and divisibility) and fiat (scarcity i.e. salability across time). Vijay covers the properties of good money in his well-known article [1] (now book) better than I could. If you buy this argument the logic goes that there's not much more room for improvement when it comes to money. But who knows what someone might think up next... [1] https://vijayboyapati.medium.com/the-bullish-case-for-bitcoin-6ecc8bdecc1 https://vijayboyapati.medium.com/the-bullish-case-for-bitcoi...