I agree that in time, with new innovations and by finding a real niche,
Ethereum could become important and facilitate what the developers
originally envisioned. But that will not come with users or mass adoption,
but from an actual product that they could maintain a monopoly over.




Simply, the different parts of the Bitcoin system are actually the same entity
represented in three different ways. It is like in physics, with how light can be
a wave and a particle at the same time. The ledger entry, the work performed,
and the token representative is in actuality the same thing, viewed through
three different perspectives. This network type is cyclical and provides true
computational security from its enclosed self sustaining system. In a way, it
could be compared to the Ouroboros snake, and this is one of the reasons
for Bitcoin's success, it is it's own walled self sustaining city.

So, if this is true and now we wish to make the token a representation of any
physical property, it breaks the security system that is inherent in the Satoshi
blockchain system, since the physical property can never be converted into
energy, the same way electricity through PoW is transmuted into the blockchain,
which is the token and its value. Very simply, the token will never truly be tied
to that property on chain, other than by third party guarantees that they are.

So, because of this reasoning, I do not think blockchains can really do anything
other than currency. The blockchain is the currency, but a blockchain can not be
a physical property without a third party telling you to trust that it is.