Really excellent article. I was cringing when I started reading it worrying it is yet more blind Ethereum hatred.
I wish I had time to answer all your concerns, I want to start a decent thread on /r/ethereum to address all off these concerns and the newest one (the incredibly expensive spam attack) which you haven’t included yet.
A few take aways that I want to provide some context for though;
- While there may be more developers directly on Bitcoin than Ethereum on a protocol level, there is far more expertise in the Ethereum ecosystem building things on top of Ethereum. This means there is a wider array of voices and more eyeballs.
- Since your article was published, spam attacks (by far the most severe threat to Ethereum’s existence so far) have commenced. These attacks initially took down the entire set of Geth nodes, subsided for a while and then started exploiting every bit of misaligned pricing and code bloat it could. The network however kept trucking along thanks to Parity and EthereumJ. There can no longer be any dispute that the multiple implementation approach paid off. Peter Todd was plain wrong and reality has borne it out. The loss in market cap alone would have justified the costs of the multiple implementations many times over.
- Having been immersed in the community at the time of the DAO hack, it’s clear that the rollback was a one time thing. It was enormously divisive and distracting to get done. Even people at DEVCON2 expressed dislike at the fork. I am willing to wager that even if your political arguments bear out, and the foundation is legally forced to build a fork, the community will not do a reversal fork again. For proof of this, go read the current criticisms of ether.camp’s ludicrously capped $50mil ICO.