Interestingly, he was very wrong about the 2nd reason to buy BTC (it hasn't exactly replaced the existing financial system), but the other two -- past performance and "civil liberties" (for drugs, ransomware etc) were close enough.
This is how I (and perhaps others) console myself for not buying at all. With the capital and risk appetite I had at the time, I would have made a nice five-figure profit before selling thinking 'this is the top, for sure'.
As for past performance, absent a rational basis for the price, you could equally write a post "Why I'm Putting All My Savings into Tulips (1635)".
And as for civil liberties — Ross Ulbricht might want to have a word with the author regarding the drug use case. And I don't think even the most hardcore libertarians would consider the ransomware business a civil liberty.
What's more free market and "personal responsibility" than allowing ransomware to weed out the weak/unfortunate? That sounds exactly like libertarianism to me.
Didn't read the links completely, but isn't this just a case of survivorship bias?
In 2011 maybe what he spotted was how human greed was going to make the whole thing skyrocket, but over-analyzing it made him think BTC is a solution for the future, etc, etc.
https://falkvinge.net/2017/06/11/right-money-bitcoin-hits-30...
Interestingly, he was very wrong about the 2nd reason to buy BTC (it hasn't exactly replaced the existing financial system), but the other two -- past performance and "civil liberties" (for drugs, ransomware etc) were close enough.