> So the article doesn’t seem in conflict with my HN reading, 80s/90s surviving self any more than me thinking AOL and Broadcast.com sucked back then even though I bet my whole career on the Internet.
I think we agree and I haven't made my point clear. To use your analogy, my criticism was more directed toward those who think AOL = the Internet. I'm not cheering for Bitcoin per se, but I'm cheering for the development of the technology underlying it, and disagree with those here in the comments who are saying we don't need blockchains because we already have relational databases.
The future will definitely have cryptocurrency used in ways we can’t even imagine. Digital cash will be huge. That I believe. That any of the current currencies warrant any value at all much less the speculation, I’m iffy on.
Both statements “the future is crypto” and “current crypto is a bubble and all are worthless” can both be true.
The main use case of crypto currency, digital cash for digital transaction, does not require a bitcoin worth $1M. Successful cash doesn’t mean massive increases in crypto portfolios.
So the article doesn’t seem in conflict with my HN reading, 80s/90s surviving self any more than me thinking AOL and Broadcast.com sucked back then even though I bet my whole career on the Internet.