> What? Who ever thought that?
These kind of statements are usually meant tongue in cheek and should not be read in an absolutist manner. You can read this kind of intent in text when a normally serious publication like The New Yorker uses a whimsical statement like "poster boy".
Stripped of hyperbole, they mean he was head of one of the largest crypto exchanges in the world, as a result of which many people in the crypto world looked up to him.
That's an accurate assessment - although if you're a crypto supporter, then I guess you would wish it not to be.
https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2021/01/18/gell-mann-amnesia/
I think the only contentious part here is how you quantify "easily".
And yes, she probably doesn't understand the dynamics.
That even if you round up the devs by government authority, the code will start forking like crazy.
What? Who ever thought that? To the kind of people writing this article probably since the companies they work for were on SBF payroll.
> Hilary J. Allen, a law professor at American University, said, testifying in last week’s hearing of the Senate Banking Committee
This woman went there in front of the US congress and spewed a bunch of incorrect technical information. She said Bitcoin can be easily controlled by a few core devs and mining pool operators. She clearly didn’t read about the events that led to the Bitcoin Cash split. Now you may have opinions on this but you have to agree she doesn’t understand the dynamics between nodes, miners and mining pools.
One thing is to not understand something and have an uneducated opinion but another is to appear in front of a congress to testify something as a verified professional. Do you really expect some proper closure on this when government is relying on such low quality input?