I respect Ethereum project and people behind it, but am not convinced.

For loops: I am tired of seeing Turing complete, to mean just for loops, I thought, HN crowd busts jargon, so I am just going to say for loops. I think Bitcoin makes minimal use of the resources on the Blockchain, hence the minimalistic script, which can be used for multi-sig as a condition to move coins. Which the creators felt is sufficient, and the actual contract could live (run) outside. Now imagine if there are 1000 Dapps (distributed apps in Ethereum world) running and all of them have for loops. Now for every block which is written, it will have the overhead to run all these for loops. And each of these for loops are going to run on each of the full nodes. That is the ones which are trying to mine a block. I think, this is a huge overhead. As if PoW based mining is not a computing burden already.

I know they are exploring PoS for mining. But I think PoS is better for closed Blockchains, with limited stake holders. Example the settlement layer which the Big Banks are exploring using a closed Blockchain, obviously can do with PoS as all blocks can be signed by all stake holders.

Dapp: I don't clearly understand why Dapps need to live on the Blockchain. As there core logic is bound to be bloated, and should live outside the Blockchain, to conserve resources. Bitcoin being a single app on the Blockchain i.e a crypto currency app, is facing scaling issues. Imagine a diverse range of Dapps all living on the Blockchain!

Scaling: Admittedly there is a dispute going on in Bitcoin land over scaling. And I have been gobbling up points on all sides for months now. And IMHO the issue is very complicated. When I started out, I shared the view point that they should increase the block size. But, I don't know, recently, I am beginning to see the point of the core developers. I see merits in the argument of decentralized nature being preserved. Also attempts like Seg-Wit (again note they are pushing things outside the block, again making it as minimal as possible, contrary to the Dapp philosophy).

Look at it this way, if Ethereum had come first, Bitcoin would be a single Dapp on it. And with all its problems. Ethereum is just out, and most likely it will evolve in the direction of the first successful Dapp. As of now, IMHO, its an idealistic platform in search of a real (d)App. No disrespect. I trust Butarin & co are a sincere bunch of guys, but they have a long road ahead compared to Bitcoin.

Not a ponzi scheme: Lastly, I really hate to see a lot of folks casually dismissing Bitcoin as a ponzi scheme. Kindly note that its creator has not moved a single coin. The second guy who joined him has passed away. And I think, Bitcoin has inherited the philosophy and spirit of its founder(s?) and early devs, who had no idea what they are getting into. And were mainly doing it to finally have a successful crypto currency, after many failed attempts.

So overall, I don't buy the points of the Coinbase co-founder. He definitely makes some good points. But IMHO he gets a lot of it wrong, and based on presumptions (e.g. the world needs Dapps running on Blockchains), only some of which I have explained above.

Edit: Typos & minor rephrase