While I don't think Bitcoin is a "weapon intended to damage central banking", I'm not sure why the author has such an affinity towards central banks.

He claims Bitcoin might destroy social safety nets — but how are central banks protecting those institutions? The cash that quantitative easing produces goes right into the hands of banks / investors. Rich people get richer when QE inflates the stock market to new highs. Working class people get poorer, and will feel the subsequent crash harder.

If anything, Bitcoin is better for working class people. It means the money they earn retains value, regardless of whether they invest it in the market.