I welcome good criticism of Bitcoin, but that one seemed like a poorly written article.
His main arguments were that "nobody buys anything except drugs with Bitcoin". Well that's just completely false.
And the second was that Bitcoin is used mainly for speculation. Could be true, but I don't think that will always be true. Probably just an early life "feature" of a currency made from scratch. When it's so "little" of it (value wise), it's easy to increase its value hundreds of percentages overnight, just like when we saw Android grow 900% in a year back in 2010 I think. But then it levels off, when the rule of numbers goes into effect. I'm pretty sure that's what will happen to Bitcoin, too.
When a country creates a new currency, the speculation might not be that high because all of the sudden that currency is worth a lot, backed by all the assets of that country. So it starts off at a pretty high value level. Bitcoin couldn't have afforded to do that, unless there were some billionaires putting all their money into Bitcoin from day one.
His main arguments were that "nobody buys anything except drugs with Bitcoin". Well that's just completely false.
And the second was that Bitcoin is used mainly for speculation. Could be true, but I don't think that will always be true. Probably just an early life "feature" of a currency made from scratch. When it's so "little" of it (value wise), it's easy to increase its value hundreds of percentages overnight, just like when we saw Android grow 900% in a year back in 2010 I think. But then it levels off, when the rule of numbers goes into effect. I'm pretty sure that's what will happen to Bitcoin, too.
When a country creates a new currency, the speculation might not be that high because all of the sudden that currency is worth a lot, backed by all the assets of that country. So it starts off at a pretty high value level. Bitcoin couldn't have afforded to do that, unless there were some billionaires putting all their money into Bitcoin from day one.