[unclebucknasty]

I think what patio11 is saying (and I agree) is that too much is being made of the ideals behind the Bitcoin protocol and paradigm, but it doesn't really translate when met with the hard test of practical reality.

I noted your argument, along with many others on the GP's sub-thread which make this very distinction between Bitcoin as a concept and Bitcoin as an actual thing. In so doing, you suggest that failure to make the distinction is misleading and you align yourselves with the idealistic praise heaped on by the original article.

But, I would agree with patio11's insinuation: i.e. that the real fallacy is in this praise. It's misleading, because at some point, the protocol must be implemented in the real world, consisting of exchanges, wallet services, payment services, etc. These are all points where bad actors can attach. To say, "well, that's not the Bitcoin protocol" is to point out a meaningless distinction. When you find a way around these implementation limitations, then it matters.

TL;DR: as implemented, Bitcoin in practice solves exactly none of the problems espoused by the article. We need look no further than real-world events to see this.

[unclebucknasty]

I challenge whomever downvoted me to refute at least the tl;dr in my comment.