The one guy has public perception on his side: Bitcoin has been talked about to death, but besides a few booms and busts fueled by speculators wanting to get rich quick, it feels like a failure to launch. The onus is increasingly on the Bitcoin proponents to step up and deliver real value.

I can donate to wikileaks when visa and the other credit issuers blocked them. Bitcoin isnt popular as a day to day currency but neither is gold or hairballs. But yes I agree it's time proponents to push it into mainstream.

It's not at all as if Nick Weaver is the only computer scientist skeptical about Bitcoin. Would you have felt better if they quoted several more?

Yes, thats the point I'm trying to make.

I don't think he's the only one, obviously. But the way the wrote the article and presented it makes it seem like 1 computer scientists opinion = numerous market analysts and companies.

It's unbalanced. Not to mention, why does a computer scientist have significantly more weight than market analysts, when talking about market prices and predictions.

Perhaps Weaver is uniquely qualified for predicting markets in regards to Bitcoin. If so, great. Tell the reader why I should weigh his opinion more heavily than Facebook, Twitter, and (again in their words) several market analysts.

At this point, I find it hard to take mainstream journalist's criticism of bitcoin seriously unless the criticizers agree on what they're criticizing.

Bitcoin isn't exchanges or "crypto" or "blockchain" or ICOs or tokens.