That is a very strong rejoinder.

As I said, I am not ‘anti-bitcoin’, but there is one thing about it I just don’t like. It is a ‘virtual asset’ — with all of the characteristics of gold other than use a physical material in the production of certain goods —not a ‘currency’. So calling it a “currency” strikes me as misleading. If it had been billed as ‘virtual gold’ or ‘cryptogold’ I would like it better. To me that is much more than mere semantics.

The stupendous energy that ‘mining’ cryptocurrencies consumes is an issue. I was guilty of playing a bit loosely with the author’s argument to squeeze that in there, but that is a real concern.

I had read that it is infinitely divisible, so I stand corrected. Thank you for that.

It is ‘tied’ to fiat currencies, not formally, but in the sense that it has no intrinsic value, but is only valuable in its relation to them. If Bitcoin could not be bought and sold using fiat currencies, what would it be?