No one's arguing bitcoin has the same level of adoption as USD for facilitating trade. They're arguing that it has more than zero and that ETH has zero.
Two comments up you argued that having fewer options inherently means you're getting a worse deal than someone with more options. Bitcoin is an extra payment option in n>0 situations. "n is small" is true, and a reasonable point when evaluating the usefulness of bitcoin. "n is small and therefore n is zero" is a little less reasonable argument, but seems to be what you're arguing.
And not a payment situation at all in almost all solutions.
"n is small and therefore n is not useful compared to x" is what I'm arguing. You cannot depend on n when the ability to use it as a means of payment is so inconsistent. That goes for any value of n not just Bitcoin.
Compared to the none of them that take ETH.
> Depending on where you are located.
Or irrespective of where you are located if you are trying to offload ETH because nobody wants it.
> That's why you can't judge any cryptocurrency for that because they are all universally shit at it.
There are varying degrees of shit and BTC is the only one that even comes close to being a real currency rather than a speculative one.