I think the simple answer is that it's clickbait. A while back there was a relatively well-known pop science magazine with a cover story "Darwin Was Wrong". I'm having trouble finding the actual article now since the title is such a common phrase. It turned out to be something like him being wrong about the "tree of life" because genetic studies proved that horizontal gene transfer was extremely common in the earliest generations, hence there's no single common ancestor or "trunk". Not, as any reasonable person might conjecture from that headline, a debunking of the overall theory of evolution by natural selection.

I don't see how crypto-currency dogma is on the same level with evolution. It seems to me a lot of the criticisms have been borne out. Bitcoins are worth a lot to speculators but they remain infrequently used as an actual currency.

> I don't see how crypto-currency dogma is on the same level with evolution.

That's not a claim I have any interest in. I'm just drawing the parallel of an article "debunking" someone while actually agreeing with their central thesis.

National Geographic, fwiw: https://i.imgur.com/GGKLx.jpg

I was thinking of a different one, an article in New Scientist. The full title of the article is apparently "Darwin was Wrong About the Tree of Life", but the cover much more prominently featured "Darwin was Wrong". [1] [2]

[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921-600-why-darw...

[2] https://www.newscientist.com/issue/2692%20/

I remember that. And creationists the world around started using that cover as proof they were right.

The article's title seems click-bait. It makes good points identifying some of the already known weaknesses in bitcoin's design, but he is basically complaining that Satoshi didn't predict how his creation would evolve over time which seems unfair.

He's complaining that Satoshi did predict how his creation would evolve, he just guessed wrong in a lot of the particulars. Because of course he was. Predicting the future is hard.

But predicting the past is much easier. We have a privileged position to see that, as implemented, Bitcoin is a pretty shitty currency (and a decent high risk investment vehicle). It's way too volatile, transactions are very high friction, and both of those problems look like they'll continue to get worse as Bitcoin continues to mature. More over, it's looking like none of this will actually avoid state capture now that a state actor (China) has decided they care.

No piece of software in human history has been perfect on day one. The real world always has a few surprises. But Bitcoin doesn't have a viable mechanism for change. No central authority and no privileged user means all but the most glaring bugs are unfixable.

Frankly, the article compares him to the Wright Brothers, so I think it already agrees with you. But beyond that, I'm not really sure I personally would be even that charitable.

That's exactly the point being made in this post. Have you read it to the end?