I can see subtle bias in this article. I liked it apart from the fact he tried to present it as objective, but it ultimately had negative connotations associated to it.

That is explicitly saying that Bitcoin is the owner of the currency changer (Mt Gox.). That doesn't even makes sense because Bitcoins cant own anything because noone owns Bitcoins. 
People will read that and believe it was a security fault on Bitcoins behalf.

Bitcoins ultimate ambition well might be written in the published whitepaper, which it is. That is

I do not believe the publishers cared about if governments think they are an imposter currency. Their goal is not to enrage governments and people, but to solve the specific problem of how to make virtual transactions have similar properties to cash.

It will be a long an tedious argument between the people and their governments debating if Bitcoins is a fraudulent currency (or some other disagreement).

Also, instead of being original, Peter uses the typical Drugs-Bitcoins association, which I'm sure hes aware is simply enforcing unlearned peoples doubts. Anyone that mentions you can buy drugs with Bitcoins, should also mention that you can buy drugs with federal monies, from far more people just as easily, and usually as securely (well for me anyway...).



~ Conf