[lxgr]

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.

[abetusk]

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.

[cantSpellSober]

A decentralized "Ponzi scheme?" Do you understand what Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff did?

[lxgr]

Yeah, Ponzi sold quasi-currency issued by somebody other than him to people for a promise of large profits! Why do you ask?

[cantSpellSober]

That's incorrect.

> one might argue [bitcoin] is [a Ponzi scheme] by its current holders

Going on Twitter and saying "buy BTC!" isn't a Ponzi scheme...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme