> In fact, a system where you can lose your life savings if you forget your key or download a piece of malware is not particularly trustworthy. No amount of explaining how SHA-256 works to prevent double-spending will fix that.
A second-layer solution, built on top of bitcoin, that would allow transactions to be reversed by a central authority, if a person decided to place their trust in that authority, could fix that, though.
This is the problem with the article: it doesn't take into account bitcoin's ability to change. It's like Schneier is saying the internet will never work because dial-up modems are slow and hog your phone line.
He's assuming no further innovation will occur. And like the early internet, it's practically impossible to predict what cryptocurrencies will look like in a few decades.
But I guess if we accepted that, nobody would be to blame.