I guess that is an interesting analysis but unfortunately not one I can agree with for the simple reason that bitcoins are absolutely and unequivocally fungible.
All I have to do is point to the time when the community agreed not to accept stolen coins from an exchange to totally destroy that argument.
Bitcoins are not fungible because they have unique histories. All swords start off identical as well, but if *this* sword has been wielded by the King of England in battle and *that* sword was taken off a dead thief after it was cursed by the local witch doctor... Which sword do you think will be more valuable?
Similarly, if *this* bitcoin is one of the original bitcoins Satoshi held, and *that* bitcoin was stolen from an exchange after being transferred there from the Silk Road, which coin will be more valuable?
This chasm will only increase as time goes on... Eventually we may see nations ban entire swathes of 'tainted' bitcoins.
True fungibility is needed for a worldwide currency, and unfortunately bitcoin doesn't have it.
Bitcoin was amazing, and world changing - no one is taking that away from it. It may also carry value for a long time to come. But Monero is the first true digital money and you are extremely lucky to be hearing it about it now - and not in 2017.