The gaslit asset class

Skepticism, Hype, and Human Behavior

• Many commenters identify as technically skeptical of Bitcoin yet impressed (or resentful) that it has survived multiple crypto-specific boom–bust cycles.
• There’s reflection that “over‑logical” techies miss how the “everyman” behaves; being right about technical flaws doesn’t help predict price or adoption.
• Others stress survivorship bias: successes are visible, mass losses and failures are not, so hindsight stories are misleading.
• Debate over cynicism vs optimism: cynics may avoid scams and bubbles but also miss upside; “exploration vs exploitation” of risky new ideas is a recurring theme.

Illicit Use vs Real-World Utility

• One camp says crypto’s primary product–market fit is for crime: laundering, tax evasion, sanctions evasion, ransoms.
• Another camp argues major legitimate uses: cross‑border remittances, donations to censored groups, “digital cash” for small/high‑risk online payments, and especially USD stablecoins in high‑inflation countries.
• A counterview holds that most of these needs could be met with fiat if local infrastructure and regulations weren’t so hostile or extractive; crypto is often chosen to avoid fees, controls, or taxes.

Bitcoin’s Design, Security, and Operation

• Some highlight Bitcoin’s core innovation: coordinating a global ledger among mutually untrusted parties without a central authority.
• Others argue the system’s real security depends on large holders actually running validating nodes; if they don’t, rules become “suggestions.”
• 51% attacks are debated: critics say Bitcoin is structurally vulnerable; defenders point out that no such attack has occurred despite incentives.
• Several criticize the article for omitting Lightning, difficulty adjustment, Cashu, grid‑stabilization use of mining, and for conflating “Bitcoin” with the broader “crypto.”

Money, Speculation, and Asset Framing

• Broad agreement that Bitcoin’s practical success is as a speculative asset, not as everyday money. “Number go up” is described as the de facto purpose for most participants.
• Some call Bitcoin (and currencies generally) a negative‑sum game after costs; others counter that all monetary systems have maintenance costs and that markets decide if those are worth paying.
• There’s dispute over whether Bitcoin is “money,” “a security,” or just “digital gold”; detractors note its volatility, deflationary dynamics, slow base‑layer settlement, and lack of recourse compared to banks.

Regulation, States, and Enforcement

• Commenters note China’s aggressive crackdowns versus Western regulators’ slower, regulation‑first approach.
• Traditional finance fees are defended as paying for KYC/AML and fraud protection; crypto advocates call much of that “artificially imposed friction.”
• Some see Bitcoin as a hedge against potential state abuse; others emphasize that transparent ledgers and centralized exchanges make it easier, not harder, for states to monitor and influence activity.

Quantum Threats and Future Adaptation

• The article’s scenario of a quantum actor stealing a large fraction of Bitcoin is widely questioned: ROI calculations are seen as naive because mass theft would crash the price.
• Several argue quantum capability will emerge gradually via known “bounty” addresses, giving time to migrate to post‑quantum schemes. Others doubt large‑scale quantum machines on the proposed timeline.

Critiques of the Article and “Gaslighting” Frame

• Multiple commenters find the piece biased or “gish‑galloping”: many linked claims, some strong, some dubious, with little engagement of standard counter‑arguments.
• Some say the article itself “gaslights” anti‑crypto readers by selectively presenting facts; others think its nuanced takedown is exactly the discussion the space needs.
• There is even nitpicking over the word “gaslighting” and whether early advocates were lying, deluded, or simply outpaced by how the “street” repurposed the technology.