"Bitcoin does not “secure” data. It can timestamp data, but that is not a magic guarantee of security. It does nothing whatsoever to protect data from exfiltration (being accessed by unauthorized people and copied), nor does it guarantee integrity or accuracy."

Bitcoin is made to guarantee the accuracy and integrity of data (past transactions). The guarantee is the proof of work performed since and the redundant decentralized ledger.

This article reads like copium.

Felt the book was fascinating, though not always convincing, but also I am not technically competent enough to assess whether Lowry, or the critics are right. I suspect a bit of both.

Lowrys work is clearly and overtly speculative- but is that not allowed?

Like how Bitcoin diverges into/provokes multiple threads of speculative and philosophical thoughts.

The idea that humans need some form of 'antlers' to reduce the lethal results of our endless warring is brilliant, surely, and the idea that this could be achieved via computing power / electric power generation-competition equally has some merit imo.

That's how I felt after reading his nonsense also.