But newer tech has greater possibilities.
Okay so look: a blockchain should (!) be distributed, decentralized. Forks can happen (and are resolved) because not all nodes have the same view of the network and sometimes blocks don't propagate fast enough, so it's possible that two blocks are mined as successors of the same common block. How does newer tech make sure that it can never happen? How does it ensure that it's absolutely impossible (as you're saying) that everyone always has the exact same view of the network?
The PoS design of Algorand makes forks impossible and that is according to
Silvio Micali, a Turing award winner. *Turing Award, often referred to as the “Nobel Prize of Computing*
I don't believe in 'argumentum ab auctoritate'; we don't do that in science. Only fools blindly trust (apparent) authorities. I know people, very smart ones, who developed pretty sophisticated algorithms for different types of proofs, yet they don't understand PoW. One does not exclude the other.Silvio Micali, a Turing award winner. *Turing Award, often referred to as the “Nobel Prize of Computing*
Also you don't have to tell us what a Turing Award is dude..
First, the Algorand blockchain overcomes one significant problem that has been observed with any chain that becomes popular, a hard fork.
Wait a minute; why are we now talking about hard forks? You do realize there is a difference between hard forks (A hard fork is a change to a blockchain protocol that renders older versions invalid. https://www.coindesk.com/learn/hard-fork-vs-soft-fork/) and non-intentional forks (Not all forks are intentional. With a widely distributed open-source codebase, a fork can happen accidentally when not all nodes are replicating the same information. Usually, these types of accidental forks are identified and resolved.https://www.coindesk.com/learn/hard-fork-vs-soft-fork/[/i])?“The Algorand blockchain does not fork. Each new block is separately agreed upon and is guaranteed to remain on the Algorand chain forever.
In Bitcoin, we also 'separately agree upon each new block' and it's 'guaranteed to remain on the blockchain forever'. That's why in case of an accidental fork, which so far happened very few times and required a 1 block reorg, by simply waiting one more block, the fork is resolved (it was 'agreed' which chain to use) and all is fine & dandy.The Algorand consensus is not a drawn-out process. The fact that more and more blocks are attached to a given block B does not make it more and more probable that consensus on B has been reached. Algorand separately reaches agreement on a new block. When this is done, it reaches agreement on the next block. And so on.”
So they're probably running some sort of protocol as soon as a fork occurs / is about to occur and sync. Okay, good for them. So? We just do that in the next block; in the end the result is the same.Thus, its users can immediately rely on the transactions as soon as they appear in a new block without having to wait for the block to become sufficiently deep in the chain.
Okay, we're back to 'people are impatient' then. 
So instead of haggling with clients over an unconfirmed funds transfer (as may be the case with Bitcoin), a merchant accepting tokens that are underpinned by the Algorand blockchain is assured of the finality of the transfer
Except that no merchant would consider a new not yet proven altcoin (one of 10,000) instead of 10+ years standing Bitcoin.Interesting to know that algorand gives a more secure transaction at a almost instant speed while not needing to compromise the majority % of the power grid like bitcoin.
You claim it's more secure yet Bitcoin is here for over 10 years as #1 and there hasn't been a lot of actually critical bugs in Bitcoin itself, cool cool. This also again shows you haven't understood anything yet. 'Compromising power' is the what gives Bitcoin so much security. You would need to not only get a ton of mining hardware (that doesn't exist) to attack Bitcoin, but also build a huge power plant or probably actually multiple of those. It's a totally different thing than just putting a few billions into an altcoin & getting a ton of voting shares immediately.
But this is OT now. I thought you wanted to prove how 'BTC POW is moving towards a dead end'; not discussing '[insert random altcoin] VS Bitcoin'.