> Ethereum will probably always outshine the other "Global Turing Machines" because it was the first. We don't really need another one—assuming it can adapt to changes in efficiency with hard-forks as needed.
> This statement, minus the political content, sounds very, very, very similar to what I was hearing about tech stocks a bit over 20 years ago, and houses about 15 years ago.
Well those two performed pretty damn spectacularly in the past 20 years.
> In the end the only thing I kick myself for was looking at it objectively. Bitcoin wasting untold amount of energy, low transaction rate, high wait times for confirmation, high transaction fees, ever growing public transaction history, long cryptographic identifiers for receiving and sending, and so on do not actually matter.
This reply should be mostly discounted because the author doesn't really seem to be able to do basic research. Tether imploding would actually be good for Bitcoin.
I think these mindless copy-paste criticisms don't even deserve a thoughtful reply. They are the reason there's tribalism in Bitcoin - it's just an efficient way to cope with (endless) ignorance and trolls.