Posts like these make it clear to me that the author does not really understand money, not Bitcoin. It's hard to reason about what Bitcoin's advantages are without first considering what the purpose of money is and the analysis from this article is mostly just sniping at the edges about some of the perceived flaws and not the actual usefulness which is the good part of the trade-off.
For a better understanding of money and why Bitcoin is a better money, I would recommend this article:
That article is interesting, but I have to ask about the conclusion:
> Beyond the financial case for Bitcoin, its rise as a non-sovereign store of value will have profound geopolitical consequences. A global, non-inflationary reserve currency will force nation-states to alter their primary funding mechanism from inflation to direct taxation, which is far less politically palatable.
Isn't this all backwards? In the past, when it was politically inconvenient not to be able to inflate money, governments abandoned gold-backed money and went to fiat. Wouldn't one assume then that the possibility of such profound geopolitical consequences is precisely the reason why governments will not let it become so important?
For a better understanding of money and why Bitcoin is a better money, I would recommend this article:
https://vijayboyapati.medium.com/the-bullish-case-for-bitcoi...
I'll also toot my own horn a bit which also delves into this confusion:
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Bitcoin-Book-Matters-Finances/...