Render unto Caesar, but who backs Bitcoin?

Terrible article. Ironic comparison to Paris Hilton (who is still getting richer every day, last I checked; may Bitcoin be so blessed as to 'go the way of Paris Hilton'!), unself-aware worry about dealing in dozens of currencies with different rules (newsflash: there's literally hundreds of currencies out there! Almost one to a country, even...), complete failure to recognize the value of Bitcoin as a secure decentralized digital cash with tons of advantages like a built-in scripting language for doing escrow and other smart contracts...

That this is appearing in the NYT is a reminder that while Bitcoin may seem to be everywhere and almost a done deal from a HN bubble, the rest of the world really still has no idea.

Awful article - here's some blatantly false facts/things that annoy me:

> Let’s start with bitcoin’s value — or more accurately, the volatility of its value.

That's because it's rising fast in popularity, not because of a flaw in bitcoin itself. If everyone wanted to have dollars RIGHT NOW it would rise in value very fast too and be "volatile". There is nothing about bitcoin that is inherently volatile.

> Then there is the issue of how limited the supply of bitcoin truly is. Bitcoin is digitally “mined” by computers running an algorithm. (If you just rolled your eyes, you’re not alone.)

I didn't roll my eyes, and I'm disgusted by your ignorance. Do you always roll your eyes at things you don't understand?

> Bitcoin can be transferred anonymously

False. All Bitcoin transactions are public and traceable. Silk Road?

> But if, and this is a big if, your peer-to-peer transaction doesn’t work properly, there is no central clearinghouse to complain to.

You fucked up - though shit. Do you really think you're going to get that 100000 dollar back you've sent to the wrong address in mail?

> Can you imagine a world in which we all transact with dozens of different currencies every day with different rules?

Oh, you mean like nation-wide rules, and like Yen, Dollar, Euro, Pounds?

> In truth, the best bitcoin can hope for is to be a second-rate version of gold, if that.

So a currency that is mathematically limited, not governed by anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102), and costs nothing to transfer is inferior to gold?

This is honestly one of the worst articles I've ever read. I don't even know where to start.