For example one of the article’s first points is that crypto is bad because it makes it harder for countries to enforce sanctions while ignoring that sanctions are acts of economic war and without recognizing that they have been horribly abused by governments in the past. (See Madeleine Albright defending her sanctions against Iraq which directly led to the deaths of 1.5 million women and children)
The author goes on to regurgitate every standard criticism against cryptocurrencies but in the shallowest of ways and without bringing anything new to the table.
I’ve seen many far better critiques of crypto. This article falls far short.
My original argument stands. The author’s primary argument is that crypto is bad for authoritarians/statists as it allows the subverting of state power. He is not wrong on that point, but he is viewing the issue from a one-sided perspective and his arguments are tired.
It will be very unpopular on Hacker News (which seems loaded with pro-gee-whiz people) but that doesn't make Diehl's points any less valid.
