What this article misses is that Bitcoin is not a protocol but a name. You might say a currency. Let me explain: The dollar started as a gold backed piece of p

What this article misses is that Bitcoin is not a protocol but a name. You might say a currency. Let me explain: The dollar started as a gold backed piece of paper with a certain type of look. At that time, nobody would have accepted a payment via credit card with today's fiat dollars. But today, we still pay in "Dollar". Even when no paper at all changes hands. The same can happen to Bitcoin. All kinds of future protocolls might be used to transfer "Bitcoins". These future "Bitcoins" might coexist with current "Bitcoins" during the transition phases. In fact, in the early days, the Bitcoin protocol did change. But the "wealth" of each holder was preserved. Saying "Bitcoin isn't going to become a mainstream kind of money. It's too awkward for most people." is like someone 30 years ago saying the dollar must be replaced with a different currency because eventually people will pay digitally instead of moving paper around. "Bitcoins" are not bound to a certain technology. "Ham radio" is a technology.