There is definitely a pervasive culture within cryptos of people either "getting it" or "not".

It's a bit disturbing.

I believe both sides of the aisle hold some responsibility for this disconnect. Detractors of cryptocurrency often like to cite the shady world of BitCoin securities, just like this article does.

However, that's not a valid criticism. BTC functioned only as the method of payment. You can't criticize the future utility of a technology based upon how someone has misused it. If that were the case, we should ban the Internet.

Generally though, the issue is mentioned in a broader context than just "someone did a bad thing with the internet", and more that the community behind Bitcoin, and the libertarian philosophies which guide it, give rise to the scams and dark market uses of the currency.

When evaluating and discussing any technology, you're absolutely right: it is unfair to criticize it based on a few bad examples.

However, it is fair to look at a technology and consider whether the "legal" outweigh the "illegal" ones, and if not, why.

The author makes this point succinctly.

I think the bigger picture here is that there is a serious worry that bitcoin will benefit those who participate in illegal activities far more than those who do not -- that it offers an advantage that most legal activities don't require or value heavily.

I must give you credit, this is very well said. This is a legitimate concern. I feel as though this is what others have been attempting to say when using the "illegal activities" argument.

This is true for the cultures surrounding most things I'd postulate. A large majority who support it, largely blindly but dismiss valid arguments against with suspicion, and a smaller minority who actually understand counter arguments, but believe, or hold a complex opinion.

Often it goes both ways. Of the people who oppose it, most do so blindly and dismiss valid arguments in favor, while a minority understand the arguments well enough to reply to them.

Ninety percent of opinions are crap.

We are discussing trust. It's obvious that one trusts or not, so why is it surprising we see it mirrored in a group of people discussing trust? Answer: It's not.

As jordon0day just wrote in an unrelated thread, "we have plenty of evidence that people are really bad at being suspicious of the often unreliable stuff they read on the internet"

I think this is a group that is highly sensitive to face value of statements people make and when someone makes an uninformed remark, their entirely argument is cast aside. Dissent is welcomed, but it needs to be backed by a solid justification.