The essential points underlying the overall argument are:

1) A more powerful programming language in the blockchain carries greater risk of bugs which could take down all nodes in the network, 2) multiple implementations are a bad idea, and 3) hard forks are a bad idea.

Problem #1 has the most merit. Ethereum's implementation may not be the winner, but _someday_ there will be a block chain which has a powerful programming language. Just because it is hard to get right, doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

Regarding problem #2 (multiple implementations), I'm astounded that so many agree with this, as it simply doesn't make any sense. The more implementations there are, the less risk there is that any one problem will take down the entire network. Others have written about this [0]. If anything, the problem is that 90% of the Ethereum network is running Geth today. The more diversity the better.

Problem #3 (hard forks) has also been addressed by others [1]. Without even addressing whether hard-forks are appropriate for certain situations, I think if you agree that soft-forks are appropriate but hard-folks aren't, you fundamentally misunderstand what a "soft-fork" is and what can be done with one. See [1] for more info.

[0] https://blog.conformal.com/the-bitcoin-consensus-red-herring...

[1] https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050...

Great article! But, until we have a turning complete decentralized machine someone will be working toward that goal. So it may not be Ethereum across the finish line (not today's ethereum) but until there is a better pony to bet on I don't see anyone else as far along as Vitalik et al.