It's not pathetic at all. Being wrong is not pathetic.
What amazes me most is the love of law, regulation and fiat currency at all ends of this.
Some of this is so easily refuted
Consumer protection
Bitcoins lack the consumer protection inherent in existing payment systems. Just as with old fashioned paper money, Bitcoins are subject to theft. A Bitcoin is a number with the special property that it can be transferred from one person to another via a digital signature process that is verified by the network of Bitcoin miners. However, anyone with that number can spend it. Thus, if a hacker gets access to the number, the hacker can immediately steal the Bitcoin. In a recently publicized incident, a Bloomberg TV show briefly flashed the QR code to a Bitcoin and it was almost immediately stolen. Even though Bitcoin transactions are visible in the blockchain and theoretically traceable, "tumbler" sites exist that make it possible to obscure the electronic trail. Thus, Bitcoins are as risky as physical cash, if not more so, and this will inhibit consumer acceptance. Given the incidence of malware that picks digital wallets, the average non-tech savvy person who occasionally screws up and gets some malware infection will eventually end up as a victim of bitcrime.
Yes it can be stolen. Big new there. So can cash, gold, anything. Bitcoin risk is at the moment at par with cash. Bitcoin security will increase over time. What's the argument here again?
Bad monetary policy
Many of the proponents of Bitcoin view it as a digital gold standard. Its allegedly fixed supply is seen as a panacea for the problems inherent in fiat money systems. However, the historical experience with the gold standard shows that it regularly blew up in severe recessions. It is essential that there be some flexibility in a monetary system in order to deal with crises. It is highly unlikely that the general public would accept being crucified on a cross of digital gold when the inevitable crisis hits a Bitcoin-based monetary system. (This is a reference to William Jennings Bryan's famous "Cross of Gold" criticism of the gold standard.) Thus policy makers will resist widespread use of the existing Bitcoin as a payment system.
1) Yes, it blew up because of old time QE (adding worthless metals to the coins with gold in). It was not because of the gold, but because of government intervention.
Bitcoin prevents that for obvious reasons.
2) No it isn't. The market sorts this out of itself. All evidence (at least of that I have seen, and reality seems to show this aswell) points to in the direction of intervention not working.
3) Yes, the powerful will protect their power to manipulate the currency to their own end.
Fraud
Andreessen errs in his assertion that Bitcoin is fraud-proof for merchants. It is quite easy to imagine several possible situations resulting in fraud losses to merchants. For example, suppose a customer attempts a purchase from an online merchant, and enters the Bitcoin number. Alas, a hacker has broken into the system, Target style, and grabs and spends the Bitcoin number before the merchant even sees it. Even if the compromised system was on the customer's end, it may be hard to prove and the merchant still ends up eating the loss or facing a lawsuit. And, of course, the merchant's wallet could be hacked and the Bitcoins stolen, with no recourse.
This, I don't even get. The payment was made ... and then.. what? I really don't understand what he means. I don't think he understands the technology here.
.... ... ... .
