Hmm, "Death of the Internet Predicted"? Seriously, are there one or two succinct points to this article? Is it saying: - The author thinks Bitcoin users are e

Hmm, "Death of the Internet Predicted"? Seriously, are there one or two succinct points to this article? Is it saying: - The author thinks Bitcoin users are either irrelevant crackpots (anarchists/libertarians) or criminals? - Gold is valuable and Bitcoins are not because digging in the ground is fundamentally more valuable than discovering large prime factors of numbers? - The author doesn’t like the properties of Bitcoin, or Bitcoin is not useful to national governments because they can’t control it (not a monetary instrument, can’t reduce supply, etc)? - The author believes Bitcoin is doomed to collapse to essentially no value? - The author believes people who engage in Bitcoin trading are involved in a Ponzi scheme? I’m not sure what the point is, but to be fair, I’m not sure it matters. Bitcoin is useful for those who value its properties, and there are many people who do. No one can wave off these people by labeling them as money launderers, anarchists, or Ponzi schemers (which I don’t think is even true); nor will such statements, or analyses such as this article, prevent anyone from trading Bitcoin, buying or selling with Bitcoin, or holding Bitcoin. And since Bitcoins are fungible and becoming ever more so as time goes on, regulations and laws will prove difficult-to-impossible to enforce, in a manner very similar to P2P file-sharing (but with all the technical lessons of P2P sharing now learned). You might bet against Bitcoin specifically because of one or more technical flaws, but digital currencies in some form, and specifically currencies not controlled by any nation or corporation, are here to stay.