If this claim is true, the author is certainly not the one you should be listening to for such a topic. I suspect a sponsored article paid by a third party, as

If this claim is true, the author is certainly not the one you should be listening to for such a topic. I suspect a sponsored article paid by a third party, as it seems to contribute to the confusion of the uninformed about bitcoin. But then they say never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. >> "The developers of bitcoin are trying to show that money can be successfully privatized." There is so much bias in this sentence that I don't even know where to start. First of all, the developers of bitcoin are not necessary trying to show anything, are also not necessary the ones or the only ones. Bitcoin is an experiment, and they say that explicitly everywhere. Second, people encouraging the use of bitcoin are way bigger than what the author seems to imply, It's now an economy worth billions, remember? >> "sophisticated algorithms guaranteeing the anonymity" Again, bitcoin does not guarantee anonymity. They say that explicitly here https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity >> "bitcoin is tiny; at the current exaggerated exchange rate, the total projected volume of “coins” is worth less than the gross domestic product of Mongolia" _is_ tiny now doesn't give you a clue about it's future size. "But the monetary philosophy behind this web-based phenomenon can be traced back to one of the oldest theories of money." Web-based? Seriously? I honestly stopped reading to do my brain a favor.