Do a find/replace in that article, replacing 'bitcoin' with 'gold', and all the points are equally valid. This demonstrates that the reasoning used in the arti

Do a find/replace in that article, replacing 'bitcoin' with 'gold', and all the points are equally valid. This demonstrates that the reasoning used in the article is flawed, as we know that gold has not suddenly lost all of it's value due to a more or less fixed supply. Additionally, you can replace 'bitcoin' with anything with a fixed supply, say 'us dollars pre 1950', and the logic of the article remains unchanged. Again, this demonstrates that the reasoning used in the article is incorrect. Perhaps bitcoins will be worth a lot, the same, or nothing tomorrow. This article sheds absolutely no insight to help us figure that out.