Your personal opinion of Bitcoin, pro or con, is not at issue here, so it is not necessary to send me a treatise on the subject. What is at issue, and what is simultaneously amusing and revealing, is his alarm at the prospect of more and more people coming to distrust fiat money.

First, he tells us that Bitcoin is based on "distrust of human institutions" -- but Bitcoin, not having been sent to us by Mars, is itself a human institution. Its stated purpose is to improve on existing human institutions. So when he says he hopes "humanity finds a way to build trustworthy human institutions," that's pretty much exactly what Bitcoin developers and supporters say they're doing.

If it's a decline in "trust in human institutions" he fears, perhaps he could trouble himself to take a moment to understand where that distrust has come from. Instead of blaming the victim, he might consider why someone might disapprove of fiat money and/or central banks.

We don't like a money that loses its value over time; gold, by contrast, held or gained in value. The Fed's lackeys have tried to gaslight us into believing that it's a bad thing for a money to gain in value over time because this amounts to "deflation," which they have portrayed to us as the worst thing imaginable. I've discussed this on the Tom Woods Show numerous times, so I'll say simply: (1) it is not the worst thing imaginable; it is actually a very good thing; (2) falling prices (which is the flip side of a money gaining in value) is a natural result of unhampered capitalism that only a misanthrope would want to counteract; (3) all the arguments about why falling prices are bad are extremely stupid and not worth anyone's time.

We don't like a money whose supply can be increased at the whim of a small group of technocrats, and used to benefit or bail out particular firms or sectors. This is not only grossly unfair, but it also leads to a moral hazard problem: financial actors are more reckless than they would be in the absence of such a money.

We don't like a money the manipulation of which interferes with the natural level of interest rates, and thereby sets the economy on an unsustainable course that culminates in recession/depression (this is of course the Austrian theory of the business cycle).

So if Yuval Harari would like to make himself useful, he might go ahead and criticize those things, instead of criticizing people who quite understandably are trying to create an alternative to that kind of money.