You should work on your reading comprehension. The parent never made these claims. Whose beliefs are you even talking about? Saying something is not useful and not practical is not the same as saying it will fail or stop existing.
The only thing you're doing here is psychologically manipulating someone into accepting a bet with conditions you yourself chose that are clearly in your favour.
You didn't even define what the vague phrases "the Etherum project will fail" or "the project is no longer around" is even supposed to mean. The betting conditions are effectively "give me everything you have when I feel like it".
You're offering a nonsensical bet.
We live a world where people often delight in keeping obscure things alive. Even http://nyan-coin.org still has a following!
As an illustration of what I mean, I'll be incredibly surprised if bitcoin ever truly dies, and the price ever truly tanks. I'd expect coins to remain above $100, as a few people will flat-out refuse to sell for less, and minimal trading will still take place. Anything in the "real" world though? naaaaah.
Not really; my point was that some things never die, however functionally useless they become.
The top comment said that Eth will become functionally useless, and the bet offered didn't involve it becoming functionally useless.
All it'd take is two bored people to stop this from happening, merrily trading just for their own delight.
As with bitcoin, I'd be really surprised if any of these coins stopped being used entirely, thanks to tech enthusiasts keeping them alive.
So why not try offering a bet on the success of a project, rather than going through the horror of trying to prove a negative?
EDIT: the intent here was to expose overconfidence and vague predictions, not pay fan service to ethereum or suggest an actual bet. if anybody is interested in how to make proper predictions, I recommend the books by Philip Tetlock, especially the latest called Superforecasting [1].
EDIT2: I wasn't aware my views are so controversial, so here is some more background: If somebody was convinced something couldn't happen, he'd assign a probability of 0 to that event. If that person wanted to act according to her believes, taking on bets, no matter the odds, would have positive expected utility. Since almost nobody takes on such bets, it suggests that we generally over-exaggerate when we say things like "impossible" or "sorry for you loss", hence we are being overconfident. The other is vagueness. By not being clear about what exactly we are predicting, we're leaving the door open to back out of it later. In fact, Tetlock has found that, by making vague predictions, experts could later convince themselves (and others) that they were "close", skewing their sense of accuracy. Unfortunately, when subject to a prediction tournament with strict rules, they would score no better than random [2].
[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Superforecasting-The-Art-Science-Predi...
[2]: http://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political-Judgment-Good-Know/dp...