Paul Krugman: "[cryptocurrencies] mainly seem suited for things like money laundering and extortion."
This is not new from him, but I still don't understand why he's a columnist for the New York Times, of all publications.
Or why Mr. Krugman writes about a technology that he clearly doesn't understand and is unable to imagine a valid use for.
Incidentally, most types of cryptocurrency are actually terrible for money laundering or extortion, unless one believes that a permanent, irrevocable, and wholly public record of transactions are ideal for those purposes.
Or why Mr. Krugman writes about a technology that he clearly doesn't understand and is unable to imagine a valid use for.
Right - he isn't talking about the technical aspects of cryptocurrencies; but rather their financial use cases, which are much closer to his turf.
Also, he never said there weren't other uses cases -- only that the two he mentioned were in his view the most prominent, or driving use cases (and he is certainly not alone in this view). You may not agree with this view, but there's no need to introduce an unhelpful and misleading misrepresentation of what he actually said.
This is not new from him, but I still don't understand why he's a columnist for the New York Times, of all publications.
Or why Mr. Krugman writes about a technology that he clearly doesn't understand and is unable to imagine a valid use for.
Incidentally, most types of cryptocurrency are actually terrible for money laundering or extortion, unless one believes that a permanent, irrevocable, and wholly public record of transactions are ideal for those purposes.