Upvoting for discussion.

I wouldn't call this analysis deep nor technical. It's more like a decent concentration of seemingly rational FUD. It also does a decent job of partitioning blockchains from Bitcoin on the boundary of permissionlessness, but by surveying all blockchain FUD it does leak criticism from blockchains into Bitcoin (and perhaps does so intentionally).

If he were more nuanced when saying things like this

The attempt to force El Salvador's population to use cryptocurrency is a fiasco.

and this

they argue, mining can use renewable energy. First, at present it doesn't.

I'd have an easier time engaging with his criticisms. They don't seem to be "analyzing" in good faith, but instead taking sides for rhetorical purposes.

The main arguments made against Bitcoin:

1. It has environmentally expensive externalities not yet justified by its real world use (aka it's only used for speculation)
   • it states there are less than 5 non-exchange txs per minute
   • and the e-waste per each of these txs are equivalent to a macbook air
2. It isn't actually decentralized
   • no more than 5 mining pools in the last 7 years have controlled more than 50% of hash power
   • this will continue to be the case given economies of scale

One fallacy all these arguments suffer from is a slippery slope. Even if these were true today to assume they always be true is dumb or dishonest.

My main response without the illusion research:

1. its naive or dishonest to exclude the quantity of bitcoin being used for store of value purposes from an analysis like this; mining a block not only secures txs in that block but all prior tx history
2. next gen mining protocols, like Stratum V2 which is in use today, are being designed to decentralize a mining pool internally such that each miner can choose their own tx sets.