Fascinating. Basically the theory here is that "cold" storage, being physical and therefore within reach of governments, was more risky than "hot" storage. Talk about misjudging a threat model.

But then again, which one of us really designs their security systems with the men-with-guns scenario in mind?

Just a side note: the author is a libertarian. I suspect he believed it was the government's fault from day one.

This is a perfect example of an ad hominem argument. No attempt to refute the evidence, just a reference to writer's (alleged) political beliefs.

This approach is common on Reddit, but I'm sad to see this type of argument on HN. Can we please do better than "this argument is wrong because of the writer's politics"? I'd hate to see that kind of argument become commonplace here.

Thank you for pointing this out. I typed out a reply earlier to this effect, but deleted it. Fighting the same fight on Twitter.