He basically admits right at the start that he doesn't understand the technology and has made no attempt to learn what he senses to be "jargon",
A conversation with a typical bitcoiner usually leads into a whole series of ignoratio elenchi after ignoratio elenchi revolving around technological jargon.
and then he immediately abstracts away this deficiency in his understanding by resorting to an analogy (a dangerous tactic for any thorough logician), from the time when the technology he does not want to understand, or admit to the functional novelties of, does not exist
Thus, I think it would be useful to start this article off with an analogy set in the past. Suppose that during the 1970's, ...
From there on you know he can be only analyzing bitcoin in the abstract sense using a theory of money framework applicable to the 1970's ... a nice trick but useless for a modern understanding.
Also he italicises quotes from well-known authors, Menger, von Mises, etc and then does the same thing for his own sections he thinks are
that important, in his own mind, or to lend undeserved authority or weight to?
It smells like a 'literate' hit-piece, sprinkled with digs to smear Chuck-E-Cheese tokens, tulip manias, derision of crypto-geeks and hints at underworld characters who choose to use btc, etc ... sour grapes?, wants to get in lower? spurned gold-bug? ... hard to say, but not a serious academic work, or even that useful to gain a market understanding.
That is not say that bitcoin isn't in a bubble of course, all monetized instruments are in a state of bubble,
