-snip-
I'm just going to touch on the points I bolded if you have no issues with that.
I don't believe that Bitcoin in its current state is anything close to predictable or stable when it comes to measuring up as a currency, but it is definitely secure when it comes to international trade. I don't know if it is really able to be anything close to a global reserve currency yet, however in the future it might be something to take note on. It would be interesting to see the $30T evaporate from economic activity due to Bitcoin becoming the most prominent medium, however.
I think that you bring up an interesting point about alts but you do miss the point that even though they are more centralized, they do pose an interesting medium (especially Ethereum) for performing different business-related transactions. They're not something to scoff at but they're not irrelevant either. They are more tantalizing to investors, but that can mean a lot.
I'm curious as to how you think alts are "centralized" by default? Especially compared to Bitcoin, where miners have obviously become more centralized than ever. We are currently seeing miners right now have a war of blocksize ideology as I type.
I do agree though that alts do bring more to the table and allows people more freedom to try stuff theirselves, rather than just wait for the all might bitcoin core team to fork or do something that helps fix any problem whatsoever.
In a way I want to agree with him, because Alt's are generally developed by "known" developers and they are usually in control of the technology.
Some like Ethereum are controlled by the founders. {example : DAO } The Block size wars are going exactly like it should, with consensus being
the "decider" in this battle. I will trust Bitcoin more than the Alt's with the centralized control.
