is Taleb right about Bitcoin?

NN Taleb sure has a lot to say about Bitcoin.  He doesn't like it.

Which arguments should one evaluate?  Taleb himself says: you only need one good reason for (against) something.  So perhaps we just evaluate the strongest points, seeing if Bitcoin is likely doomed systemically. However, using Taleb's own criteria here would be akin to measuring a table with another table, ala "Wittgenstein's table".  For this reason, it is necessary to evaluate all Taleb's arguments, including random shit-flinging, equally, and in arbitrary order.

I'll try and do that, taking one point at a time.

His first argument is that Bitcoin is not a currency.  Correct.  In that sense of the term, the sense I assume he means, it is not a currency.  It's not going to have the stable-ish price required for use as a currency, in that sense of the term.  But Taleb really wants to argue against it being a currency, so you had better take the other side of the argument.  Well, it's not.  But.. some people say it is!  Well, it's not.  I'm not arguing.  If you want me to argue, you'll have to pay me.  But... it's not a currency!  Correct.

We do run up here, against rather an issue with Taleb-on-Bitcoin.  He's arguing against it very generally, as a thing to argue against.  He's not evaluating it as a thing, and seeing whether or not it can make sense to apply it to whatever situations.  He has somehow come to hate the thing itself, and will vehemently argue against the thing itself using whatever comes to hand, whatever it is.

So, it's not a currency.  But, "it's not a currency" is not an argument against it.  It is at most a milestone in anyone's understanding of what it is or is not, Taleb included.  Once this milestone is reached, there is no need to bang on about it. 

It's unseemly.  It's like Taleb "arguing against" Dinosaurs on the basis that they are "not reptiles", even tho Taleb once thought they were, and some people still dare to refer to them that way.  Silly dinosaurs!