having just read the article, it's apparent that the author has misunderstood, or entirely does not understand the principles behind what's going on.
the number of new bitcoins, for instance, that are allocated for a time period, is fixed, and from what i understand, is allocated to users by the proportion of time spent "mining". ie, 10x more mining on everyone's part does not mean 10x more coins mined.
secondly, the idea that a currency with a finite supply is a bad thing, is just rubbish. gold backed and silver backed currencies have all existed at one time or an other. some would argue that they have more benefits than fiat currency.
his final point is almost entirely non-sensical, and is related to the part before. during the bank bailouts in the financial crisis (which again, some would argue we are still in the midsts of), the bailouts created money out of air - devaluing the currency for everyone, increasing inflation, and THEN passed the debt to tax payers. how this is construed as a benefit for citizens of respective governments is beyond me. during recessions, the poor get poorer and the richer get richer. money doesn't disappear, it gravitates to those that already have it.
his 3rd point is the only one that comes close to making sense, alas, it's not really an issue. people are their own converters. how much someone will pay for something is entirely up to them, and whilst i don't see there ever being an extra column in XE.com, that's really neither here nor there.
the number of new bitcoins, for instance, that are allocated for a time period, is fixed, and from what i understand, is allocated to users by the proportion of time spent "mining". ie, 10x more mining on everyone's part does not mean 10x more coins mined.
secondly, the idea that a currency with a finite supply is a bad thing, is just rubbish. gold backed and silver backed currencies have all existed at one time or an other. some would argue that they have more benefits than fiat currency.
his final point is almost entirely non-sensical, and is related to the part before. during the bank bailouts in the financial crisis (which again, some would argue we are still in the midsts of), the bailouts created money out of air - devaluing the currency for everyone, increasing inflation, and THEN passed the debt to tax payers. how this is construed as a benefit for citizens of respective governments is beyond me. during recessions, the poor get poorer and the richer get richer. money doesn't disappear, it gravitates to those that already have it.
his 3rd point is the only one that comes close to making sense, alas, it's not really an issue. people are their own converters. how much someone will pay for something is entirely up to them, and whilst i don't see there ever being an extra column in XE.com, that's really neither here nor there.