Nick Szabo  🔑

I refuse to believe that Carstens from the BIS is the most sophisticated critic of Bitcoin. There has to be a really intelligent pro-fiat central bank economist out there who is writing a piece with steel-manned arguments against Bitcoin's continued future growth.

All they have are their self-serving dogmas & their macroeconomic speculations, & their liturgy combining these (e.g. their obsession with one economic historical event out of thousands, ignoring all its non-monetary causes e.g. tax raises & unpayable debts of defeated empires).

Maybe just a teeny bit harsh, wouldn't you say? There are several thoughtful pieces on the subject, I think.

There are also thousands of thoughtful pieces of theology from each of the major world religions that thoroughly contradict each other.

This is true, but am not sure what point you are trying to make. One can make a thoughtful pro/con analysis of any money and payment system. Unless one is peddling a particular religion, that is. Is that what you're doing?

My point is that thoughtfulness is woefully insufficient for being accurate or useful or worth reading. Why should Bitcoin people pay attention to the self-serving and often facially shallow ("Bitcoin is too volatile to ever be used as money") theologies of central bankers?

First of all, because some of those arguments may be correct, at least, in some contexts. In any case, my point is that you could do better by critiquing the arguments you find to be wrong instead of throwing all central bankers (or any class of individuals) under the same bus.