But that's not what the article says. This sentence seems to summarize the thesis: > This level of volatility, along with the difficulty of buying Bitcoins in

But that's not what the article says. This sentence seems to summarize the thesis: > This level of volatility, along with the difficulty of buying Bitcoins in the first place, and the substantial security risks, is what will stop Bitcoin from being a true alternative to state currencies He is clearly predicting the future of Bitcoin here, all the while willfully missing the point that of course something that is truly a new form of money and can't be understood strictly by existing economic models is going to first see uptake driven by speculators and can only hope to become something akin to traditional currency much further down the line. To your question, yes the onus is on bitcoin to prove its stability, but not through rhetoric. It will either happen or not in due time.