A person who knows a lot about computers and money talked about how some digital coins, like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, might become something called "hard money." Hard money means that people trust these coins as much as they trust regular money. The person compared these coins to computer languages, saying that sometimes one language is very popular, but then another one comes along and replaces it. He thinks Bitcoin is more like a special rule than a language, which might make it better at becoming hard money than other digital coins. Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and sensationalist, implying that Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana have a clear potential to become 'hard money', but the author never provides any evidence or analysis to support this claim. He only asks a rhetorical question without answering it, creating confusion and doubt among readers who are interested in understanding the true nature of these cryptocurrencies as forms of money.
2. The author uses the analogy of JavaScript replacing Fortran to compare Layer 1 networks with different computing environments that fall in and out of favor. This comparison is weak and superficial, as it does not account for the fundamental differences between programming languages and blockchain networks. Programming languages are tools for creating software applications, while blockchain networks are platforms for facilitating decentralized transactions and smart contracts. The evolution of computing environments depends on various factors, such as performance, security, scalability, interoperability, user adoption, etc., which are not necessarily related to the features or advantages of a particular programming language.
3. The author also makes a false equivalence between Ethereum's 'scripting language' and Bitcoin's protocol. He implies that script is just a language, while protocol is something more important and essential. However, this is not accurate, as Bitcoin's protocol is defined by its consensus mechanism, network rules, transaction format, block structure, etc., which are all implemented through the use of scripts. Scripts are not just a language, but a key part of Bitcoin's protocol, that determines how transactions are verified, validated, and added to the blockchain. Therefore, comparing script with protocol is misleading and shows a lack of understanding of Bitcoin's design and functionality.
4. The author does not provide any concrete examples or data to support his claims about Layer 1 networks or their tokens becoming hard money. He only relies on his personal experience and opinions, which may be biased or unreliable. He also ignores the fact that different cryptocurrencies have different use cases, advantages, and disadvantages, depending on their design, purpose, and performance. He does not consider how each cryptocurrency can serve as a medium of exchange, store of value, or unit of account in different scenarios and contexts, which are essential factors for determining the role and status of money in the economy.
5. The author does not address any of the challenges or limitations that Layer 1 networks face, such as scalability issues, energy consumption, security risks, regulatory hurdles, etc. He also does not discuss how these networks can overcome them or adapt to changing market conditions and user demands. He seems to have a naive or optimistic view of the future of cryptocurrencies, without considering the

Bullish on Bitcoin, bearish on Ethereum and Solana.

Key points:
- Woo compared L1 networks to computing environments that change with applications needs
- Woo said Bitcoin is more like a protocol than a language
- Woo questioned the potential of L1 tokens to become hard money