I just.. how does one get the gall to write like that?

> one that has unfortunately attracted outsized attention and investment before correcting any number of glaring security issues.

[links to bitcoin's own wiki about issues of which a small subset are security]

bitcoin has fixed many, many security issues over the years. most, if not all, of the remaining security issues are the same that any other tcp/ip talking protocol has and are based around DOS. straw man.

> Far from a “breakthrough”, Bitcoin is viewed by many technologists as an intellectual sinkhole.

bitcoin solves a previously 'unsolvable' problem. bootstraps multibillion dollar, zero trust, decentralized value transfer system and economy.

> A person’s sincere interest in Bitcoin is evidence that they are disconnected from the financial problems most people face while lacking a fundamental understanding of the role and function of central banking.

Or perhaps they are amateur historians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hype...

> If the broader Bitcoin experiment doesn’t implode, the currency will be regulated just as any other. In this best-case scenario for Bitcoin, what of the benefits Dixon claims?

Then it will be doomed, just like bit-torrent.. drat!

> If Bitcoin’s strength comes from decentralization, why pour millions into a single company? Ah, because Coinbase provides an “accessible interface to the Bitcoin protocol”, we’re told. We must centralize to decentralize, you see; such is the perverse logic of capital co-opting power. In order for Bitcoin to grow a thriving ecosystem, it apparently needs a US-based, VC-backed company that has “worked closely with banks and regulators to ensure that the service is safe and compliant”.

This quote right here is the tell that tips the hand. This has absolutely nothing to do with bitcoin and everything to do with outrageous barriers to entry into the payment market. Many have tried and been shut down.. coinbase is becoming successful because they are able to get over the arbitrary barrier of entry.

The author is saying "oh bitcoin will never succeed because real technologists think it's dumb and regulation will happen.. and even looky here they are centralizing anyway because they are hypocrites"

This is, from the most casual observation, asinine. a) bitcoin was bootstrapping itself well before coinbase came along. b) coinbase is succeeding because they are able to successfully battle the very regulations that many in the bitcoin community find burdensome in the first place.

> What’s unclear is the role that Bitcoin or a similar cryptocurrency could play in rectifying this dire situation [under and unbanked peoples].

What is clear is that the author is clearly removed from reality with regard to the unbanked who have access to cellphones but not banks; and insurmountable friction between local economies and more profitable ones. Many, many, many people have already used cryptocurrency in this regard and there is zero evidence that people are doing it less today than they were yesterday.

> I’ve enjoyed the thought experiment of Bitcoin as much as the next nerd, but it’s time to dispense with the opportunism and adolescent fantasies of a crypto-powered stateless future and return to the work of building technology and social services that meaningfully and accountably improve our collective quality of life.

So.. what does the author think here? Bitcoin is a fad and will have a similar fate to beanie-babies? It is over valued at the moment? Does the author really want to stake his reputation on the fact that cryptocurrencies are nothing more than 'an intellectual sinkhole?'

tl;dr; citation needed