What a mess of FUD. Key points of the article are just wrong.

1. Bitcoin is not suitable for large-scale money laundering. All transactions are stored permanently in a distributed public ledger. If it is possible to identify some reciever and trace back recievements of payments, authors of illegal activities could be found.

2. The exchange rate has still some significant volatility, but it is clearly decreasing. If an online vendor receives bitcoins for payments and converts them on the spot, the exchange rate risk is very low for him. If you account for that risk and compare it to fees for credit card processing and the risk of charebacks, it is much cheaper. There are services which do automatic conversions for online services and merchants. And these are used by NGOs and companies like WordPress.

3. Much more interesting than for money laundering is bitcoin for money transfers of migrant workers. Bitcoins can bought in almost any mayor currency of the G8+5 countries. Via services like localbitcoin.com, they can be sold in virtually any place in the world. They are ideally suited for workers form developing countries to send modest amounts of money home, much cheaper than with Western Union and the like.

4. Bitcoins have been a risky but profitable investment in the past. The exchange rate is increasing in the long run, and there is no special reason why it should not continue to do. Now, as the rapid growth of exchange rates had some slowdown, it is still quite profitable (as well as still risky). Of course, there is the danger of new bubbles... but we've seen that in the long run, the value returns.

5. The article makes a key point in the assumption that bitcoin is used predominantly for illicit trade and fails completely at proving that. The well-informed reader will know that the percentage of the shadow and informal earnings at the GDP will be usually 7 % or much higher. A significant part of this is transacted in cash. The article does not bring any proof whether bitcoins is used more for that than conventional payment methods.

6. On giving up being defensive, I think there is a area in which decentral currencies like Bitcoin could bring significant improvements for mankind: They will make it more difficult to finance war. Traditionally, war has been financed by governments stealthily printing money and raising uncovered debts, undermining stability of national currencies in one or another form. Wars have been the main causes of mayor inflations, robbing many millions of people from their savings and the result of their life's work.

7. And I have a last objection: The article arrogates that money transfers by Iranian people are per se illegitimate. I beg to differ. While I am very far away from excusing or tolerating any tyrrany or arms-trafficking, I think that people in Iran have the right to eat something, to save something and to protect their property like any human being on earth. It would be an excess of hypocrisy to cry about the death of a beautiful young human like Neda Agha-Soltan, and to deny their fellow Iranians the right to eat something. Bitcoin originates from the culture of the internet, and that is a very different culture - we understand more and more that all of us are human beings, and all of us have the same right to live.