I agree that the large energy expenditure required (along with other mining costs, transaction fees, transaction latencies, etc.) to maintain the Bitcoin network ultimately makes it non-tenable for permanent financial infrastructure . However, I think the article could have made that point without completely discrediting the value Bitcoin provides by calling it a "collective delusion that value can created out of nothing by convincing greater fools to buy it after you do"...
I believe Bitcoin has served its purpose by being a pioneer, w.r.t popularizing an application of an immutable distributed ledger. However, it's not the one we should use. Ethereum's model (proof of stake) allows for most if not all of the uses of Bitcoin, without the non-scalable energy requirements and transaction costs, along with smart contracts, which have many potentially revolutionary applications (voting, public records, etc.). We could have our cake and eat it too..
I believe Bitcoin has served its purpose by being a pioneer, w.r.t popularizing an application of an immutable distributed ledger. However, it's not the one we should use. Ethereum's model (proof of stake) allows for most if not all of the uses of Bitcoin, without the non-scalable energy requirements and transaction costs, along with smart contracts, which have many potentially revolutionary applications (voting, public records, etc.). We could have our cake and eat it too..