In other words if you strip away everything that makes BitCoin different and unique from its predecessors, BitCoin looks the same as its predecessors.
I can see plenty of good arguments for non-physical currency. Bitcoin seems to combine the downsides of the Gold Standard and the Euro, though. Deflationary currency is a bad idea. Giving up control of one's currency is a bad idea.
Perhaps we can ask each other some questions:
My first question: BTC is designed with very limited bandwidth for transactions (right now it can only do 7 transactions per second). Is there an actual solution in place to deal with this? All I ever see is hand-waving about how the limits could be raised or eliminated, though that appears that it would create a problem with block chain size and bandwidth.
Is there a proposal someplace that actually addresses BTC's current lack of capacity that doesn't just create a rather massive bandwidth and storage problem?
Beyond that, I found their choice of reference level of traffic oddly low given the stated ambitions of most serious BTC proponents.
This also has the advantage of instant and micro transactions with minimal fees, while retaining most of the properties of Bitcoin itself (decentralized, trustless, irreversible)
I agree that bitcoin might be harder to kill due to those technological aspects, that does feel like it was not sufficiently addressed in the article.
I think the point is Bitcoin is revolutionary in many ways than just being a digital currency. It's also P2P, and these type of technologies seem very hard to shut down by governments, after reaching critical mass. There are probably a lot of things governments could do to slow it down, but I'm not sure they could kill it.