I'm sorry but why the need for an ad hominem, why not use logic and evidence to rebut his argument? Could it be that it's because he makes a good argument?
Nah, it's just due to lazy debate.
The author points to GLBSE as well as those who
have insisted on faithfully re-creating the financial institutions of the meatspace world banks, stock markets, derivatives trading, and the like without any of the familiar meatspace law enforcement mechanisms (police and courts) or the best-known traditional black-market alternative to these mechanisms: the threat of immediate physical violence as an incentive to promise-keeping.
And makes the assertion that
most of its users are alarmingly dull. This includes the pioneers who set up Bitcoin-based financial services of every kind. Why? Because they are pounding in nails with a microscope
(emphasis added by me)
There is a problem with the following argument:
Bitcoiners are pounding in nails with a microscope, because they have insisted on faithfully re-creating the financial institutions of the meatspace world
The fact that
some people have insisted on re-creating the financial institutions of the meatspace world (or transacting with those creations) is not evidence that
most people have engaged in this activity. With no statistics or reliable polling on the matter, this is an assumption that could very well be false and incorrect. It is the opinion of the author, but there is no factual argument behind the assertion.