So far as I can tell, all the points Denninger has made here are supported only by Denninger's bare assertions. It reads like a message board post. Here's an article critical of Bitcoin that does better than recasting opinions as facts:
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/04/03/1425292/the-problem-wi...
If you think he's misusing a concept, then say so. He clearly names the concepts and describes what he believes them to mean, so you can plug those into Google and see if you agree.
If you think the logic he's using to support his arguments is faulty, then you can simply point out the logical flaws in his arguments. This again does not require any citations or particular outside authority.
Finally, the entire post is clearly presented as his opinion on Bitcoin and in response to people asking for his thoughts. Given this, what is wrong with him expressing his opinion based on logic and his understanding of concepts. Why does his opinion require citations?
Next, if you look carefully at the post, you'll find, I think, that it's a mix of two basic rhetorical approaches:
1. Recapitulating shopworn arguments about Bitcoin as if they were fresh points, sometimes using jargon that conceals their banality, such as the "privilege of Seigniorage" that boils down to Bitcoin having no central bank.
2. Idiosyncratic attempts at first-principles arguments, like the "entropy" (helpfully defined in the article) in comparison to gold coins lost off the side of a ship.
There's nothing wrong with writing a post like this. Denninger didn't ask for his post to be nailed to the top of HN. I just don't find the post particularly credible.
From that author's biography:
> Everything she knows about economics stems from a childhood fascination with ancient economies. . .
> She studied Ancient History at UCL, and has a masters in Journalism from what was then the London College of Printing.
I hope this is just an elaborate troll, since this was your criticism of Denninger:
> He has no particular authority regarding economics (he's not a trained economist so far as I know)
(55 minutes pass)
I'll take that as a 'no'.
> Bitcoin’s programming ensures there can never be more than 21m coins in existence. Part of the “bubble” effect, no doubt, is linked to a realisation that we are quickly approaching that limit. According to the latest data from Bitcoin charts, for example, there are currently 10,986,175 bitcoins in issuance. Yes, we still have some room to go, but given exponential dynamics, the fact that we’ve reached the “half-way point” in supply is no doubt meaningful.