Isn't the removal of this flaw baked into bitcoin by it's nature? No, it's not. Bitcoin isn't backed by any political will of any kind. It is a sheer market. T

Isn't the removal of this flaw baked into bitcoin by it's nature? No, it's not. Bitcoin isn't backed by any political will of any kind. It is a sheer market. That is the author's main point. That since it is money not backed by the, hopefully, benevolent will of a state it will be subject to the whims of market makers or the panic of the crowd. I think the author of the article is quite correct in making this point. History has repeatedly shown that the mercy of the state is better than the chaos of the market, at least over the long term. Yes, every once in a while the state will take away a punch bowl that it didn't need to take away, but that doesn't mean that their overall goals aren't worthwhile. More rarely the state clamps down too hard, but history shows that in these instances the market's ability to correct an overbearing state has greater celerity than the body politic's ability to overcome the enormous chaos of a completely free market. History isn't even necessary in the argument though. We all get to vote. Bitcoin has already failed as a currency. It is subject to incredible moodiness and instability, which are the characteristics of a very poor currency indeed. Currency, in a well functioning economy, is supposed to be the most stable and predictable security that one can invest their wealth; in theory, it is not even supposed to be a security. Bitcoin may have made some people wealthy, but I'm not going to trust all of my wealth in it like I would American dollars.