Sure there's lots of fraud, excitement, and ignorance right now in cryotocurrencies, but there are also fundamental problems with the current attempts. Distributed consensus means eventual consistency and/or slow unreliable transactions, I'm not convinced that's a good idea for a payments network.
The article makes the point that many people putting money into these schemes know nothing about the tech involved or the possible applications/drawbacks, they're gambling based on hearsay.
As with most bubbles, what comes after probably won't resemble what got everyone excited, and early investors will lose their money. So it's understandable many are sceptical.
I wonder if a sacrifice is always necessary for certain types of improvement. (e.g. the titantic had to crash for safer boats, WWII had to happen for less war, etc...)
The article makes the point that many people putting money into these schemes know nothing about the tech involved or the possible applications/drawbacks, they're gambling based on hearsay.
As with most bubbles, what comes after probably won't resemble what got everyone excited, and early investors will lose their money. So it's understandable many are sceptical.