Do people who didn't make any money off of crypto just upvote any crap Bitcoin article that has a negative connotation in the title?

Fact: There are pros and cons to decentralizing a system. Some alleged pros to the centralized system were not described in any technical detail in this article.

No. I just agreed 100% with "Decentralised magically doesn't mean it's better. There are scenarios it fits, and there are scenarios it doesn't fit."

At last someone smarter than me, agrees with me. I've been telling people the same thing since {I didn't invest in BTC when it was $8}. :)

The main thing about BTC, the one that I, as a technical person, didn't understand until recently, is NOT it's tech, bugs or features... It's the value it has for people (albeit until recently mostly criminals and paranoid people). Value that is just as tangible as FIAT currency.

This seems to be a rather short-sighted view of the 2008 financial crisis. Even conceding that the bailout of the too-big-to-fail banks was a good thing and saved the economy, and that this was possible only because of the centralization that this article supports, it was this same centralization that did things such as repeal the Glass-Steagall Act that allowed for such zany behavior that led up to the crisis in the first place. So yeah, at one moment in time centralization was very beneficial. At many other moments in time before and after that, maybe it wasn't so great.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall act actually allowed the government to somewhat step away. Some of the well capitalised commercial banks were able to absorb the losses of the investment banks by buying them out when the price was low, and then making more money once the panic ended.

I was intrigued when I started reading this article, but then it just ended without really delivering anything. I think this could be summarized as: "I once heard about how having a centralized currency helped prevent bad things. Bitcoin is decentralized."

I was actually interested to hear a perspective of how a hypothetical centralized cryptocurrency might be superior, but the author just kind of offered an allusion and nothing else.

It’s a feature, in the same way that the decentralized nature of white collar crime is a feature. The bug is in the people who naively believe that technology changes human nature, rather than empowering it.

Those people need to be locked in a small room with an excellent library to study history for at least a year.

You could say the same thing for historical approaches to central planning of anything. Plenty of good and bad to go around.

You start out with a good point, but the idea that there is one default human nature isn't right.

Individuals don’t really matter in the calculus of billions of people. The dominant trends are frankly old, and persistent.

The bandwidth, latency, and fidelity with which information is transferred between individuals has changed the calculus of billions of people dramatically.

The out come has changed over time, and that's what science says, not my personal observation.