My objection to crypto-currencies is 100% due to the associated energy costs (as i have posted articles about a few times). Anyway here are some other aspects to think about in relation to the downsides of the technology:
Hard to take Dan Goodin or Nicholas Weaver seriously when the opening premise of that article is complete nonsense.
It's not hard to look at crypto transactions and show that the overwhelming majority of them have nothing to do with illicit activity. Go ahead, find credible claims of amount of money laundered, used to purchase illicit goods, absconded with through ransomware, or strongly linked with any other illicit use. Now compare those figures to the transaction volumes and market caps of the cryptos used. It's not an insignificant fraction, but it's never been the majority, let alone the predominant use, and the fraction has decreased over time. Weaver's assertion is a blatant lie.
Most of the other points of the article, even where the premise is correct (e.g. centralisation), are backed up by over generalizations, gross hyperbole, and/or moralistic fallacy. It's an 'argument from authority' with very little actually backing it up. He's using his credentials to rubber stamp falsehood.
I'm sure the other arguments about the relative negatives of crypto-currencies hold some merit, but for me it is still the sheer environmental cost they require that make them a dead end (and short lived) option. It is just exactly the wrong time in relation to the AGW issue to run such an experiment imho. Maybe once we have a global solution to AGW, it can be something we would have a non-damaging technological solution too, but currently it is just pouring fuel on an already out of control fire.
Nearly every one of your posts on the topic conflates proof-of-work and mining with cryptocurrency. This is one of those big overgeneralizations that nullifies much of your, and your chosen sources', arguments.
The exchange has gone on like this:
You point out the dangers of mercury, telling people not to eat fish.
I point out that not all fish are high in mercury.
You post an article that shows swordfish and mackerel are high in mercury.
I point out that most fish are not swordfish or mackerel.
You come back with an article showing the dangers of excessive swordfish consumption.
I suggest trying some Alaskan Salmon.
You post an article written by a guy who has never heard of any fish other than swordfish and mackerel, and thinks that eating fish is evil because he's a vegan.