[krapp]

I seriously doubt Charles Stross is skeptical of bitcoin because he hates and fears freedom. That kind of hyperbole only serves to feed cynicism about bitcoin and its community, particularly given the assumption that the article wasn't even worth a glance for you, because obviously "not liking bitcoin" = "globalist shill."

[Dirlewanger]

If someone's not going to like Bitcoin, at least give better reasons than crappy strawman ones like, it's being used for illicit markets (what currency isn't?), it's uses a lot of electricity (what bank doesn't?), criminals outsource mining to botnets (along with other illicit activities like pushing spam which existed before Bitcoin mining, your point?)...and then downright puerile remarks like tickling a gold fetish? Jesus christ. If he's not a "globalist shill", he definitely has next to no societal context on Bitcoin and has gotten his information from CNN and the like who equally don't understand it.

[ubernostrum]

My traditional witty summary is to say that Bitcoin is the currency of people who've read John Locke but not Thomas Hobbes.

[gottasayit]

Meh, I have never owned a bitcoin. Never mined one. Don't intend to do so soon.

I'm pretty ambivalent about bitcoins. I view them as something people want to trade with each other. They're an interesting experiment in new ways to break free of some problems of fiat currencies and precious metal currencies. If they survive it's because people find some value in them. Good for them.

I read Stross's article because I was curious about arguments against bitcoin. All I read was a bunch of knee-jerk emotional dribble about carbon footprints, lack of taxability, and the dreaded "some people own too many".

So I called it like I saw it.

[djur]

Why is lack of taxability "knee-jerk emotional dribble"? It's a serious obstacle to BTC being used as currency.

Also, why has "emotional" been used as a criticism twice in these comments already? Is Hacker News hosted on Vulcan now and I just missed the memo?