The author also "risks" constructing strawmen and then proceeds happily to do so. I was wary at first, but once the speculation started flying the article lost credibility IMO. It's a neat trick but I was less than impressed.
What will happen to bitcoin with the hashing algorithm it uses becomes obsolete? Who knows. It may not be the only game in town at that point anyway.
"Who knows"? Deciding what may happen in the future is why people write papers. If there's a particular thing wrong with the paper then why not answer that?
Would it help if I linked to various Bitcoin forum posts where I found descriptions of these proposed transition plans? I don't have a very good feel for the reputability within the Bitcoin community, and I feel that simple technical reasons will limit the range of possible proposals.
At the risk of constructing strawmen, I would like to now present my perception of the two most popularly voiced plans.
At which point I was expecting to read an unbiased over view of the popular proposals from the community and perhaps some links to the discussion threads.
And after presenting the "decentralized" version and colouring it with an analogy to chinese black markets, you say:
Is this a transition? Yes. Is it disruptive? Definitely yes. It is certainly not what you want a currency you’re using for every day transactions to be doing.
Which essentially tells me you only presented the decentralized argument to me so that you could burn it down for all to see.
I won't go so far to argue whether your position is wrong.
As a reader I just felt the article to be another Internet soap box. Links would be nice and saving the speculation until the end would have helped, IMO.
What will happen to bitcoin with the hashing algorithm it uses becomes obsolete? Who knows. It may not be the only game in town at that point anyway.