[wyldfire]

It's really polarizing because it forces us to question what we think of as currency. Is it sufficient for it to be scarce, durable, verifyable and fungible or should it have some independent utility or backing?

Some of the vitriol is backlash against the zealots who feel that Bitcoin can/should enable elements of anarchy.

[stegosaurus]

I think that's only true if you follow this idea that Bitcoin is going to take over the world, become a global reserve currency, we should hold 100% net worth in it, whatever.

Regardless of correctness, that sort of attitude feels really stressful to me (to think about the ultimate endgame of anything that ever happens under some 'ideal' circumstances). I don't think it's healthy.

For the time being, we have a cool technology that lets me use asymmetric crypto to send people a tenner on the other side of the world. If it all fails or drops massively in value tomorrow, I lose the small amount I have in my wallet.

I'm sure some cypherpunks figured that GPG meant we would all plug ourselves into the wall and be anonymous and stateless and stuff. That probably won't happen, but does it make GPG useless, worthy of ranting about?

[chc]

If it were borderline impossible to have a discussion of GPG without getting swamped by those cypherpunks, people would totally rant about it.

[cortesoft]

There is one important property of currency that you are missing in your list: accepted. Currency that is not accepted as payment for things has little use as currency. It is easy enough to create something that meets all of your requirements, but unless people are willing to accept the currency in exchange for goods and services, it is useless.

Of course, currency has a very strong network effect. Its value is tied very closely to the number of people who use it.