This is a very welcome counterpoint to a lot of the cryptocurrency hate that tends to be promoted. I think this is more along the lines of a "strong man" argument for cryptocurrency.
The article contains no real information, in fact can't even support its own title because apparently stablecoins are more attractive to those living in high inflation environments than Bitcoin.
The reader is left with no more information about "The Meaning of Bitcoin" than they entered with. No attempt is made to inform the reader about how cryptocurrency solves inflation or any of the other proposed issues with centrally-controlled currencies, besides reminding the reader that "stablecoins" exist. Well "stable" is in the name so it must be true, right? End article.
> In December 2001, Argentine President Fernando de la Rua imposed an ATM withdrawal limit of $250 per week.
> I sometimes read from people in developed countries, offended by bitcoin’s carbon emissions or by the huge amount of scams in the crypto space. ... To really get crypto, you have to have been fucked by some third party with power over your money. Be it a government, a bank, a business, or an ex-employer, it will come.
Okay, and next month the Argentine president could impose a withdrawal limit or complete block on accessing crypto exchanges (which most people will be unable to circumvent), apply strict individual and business criminal penalties on bypassing these and trading crypto P2P, and even set up honeypots to arrest those trying to trade and cash out crypto in-person.
The idea that an overreaching authoritarian government will just sit there scratching their heads and admit defeat to a decentralized database if they truly perceived crypto as a threat is hilarious.
You’re making it sound like there’s a uniform blob of unreflected hate, when it’s really specific criticisms for many different aspects.
I feel like a steelman argument for Bitcoin specifically is somewhat easier to make than one for NFTs or quasi-investment share tokens, in that it’s at least not a transparent Ponzi scheme by its issuers (one might argue it is one by its current holders, though).
The problems of Bitcoin are largely different to those of stablecoins, NFTs etc.
There's a large cohort of people who want to hate on anything related to cryptocurrency, whether it's a specific currency like Bitcoin, NFTs, web3 or related technology. You may be right that cryptocurrency proper is easier to defend against but the default position I see by most people is to criticize carbon emissions, energy usage, attack the legitimacy or the utility. One of the first comments here to this article was a comment specifically asking why Bitcoin was needed at all (in the US).
I agree that problems of Bitcoin are different from other neighboring technologies, people lump them into one and tend to use the same arguments (energy usage, scams, ponzi schemes, illegitimate, crime only use case, etc.).
This article at least starts to make the argument of why something like Bitcoin is needed and how it solves real world problems.
The article contains no real information, in fact can't even support its own title because apparently stablecoins are more attractive to those living in high inflation environments than Bitcoin.
The reader is left with no more information about "The Meaning of Bitcoin" than they entered with. No attempt is made to inform the reader about how cryptocurrency solves inflation or any of the other proposed issues with centrally-controlled currencies, besides reminding the reader that "stablecoins" exist. Well "stable" is in the name so it must be true, right? End article.