Maybe the OP could have written a post in 1990, 17 years after the first handheld mobile phone prototype, about the tech "still having not reached mainstream consumers, therefore being a failure."
The OP seems unaware how fast Bitcoin is growing. Not mainstream yet, but it's growing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bitcoin#Growth
Similarly, where is that short-term growth coming from and how would you distinguish it from a speculative bubble? Lots of companies reported amazing growth from 1995-2000, too, but anyone who looked at their fundamentals couldn't justify it.
Bitcoin is no exception. It may survive, but the story about mobile phones (and any tech that succeeded) is irrelevant here. We can have this discussion when and if it is a consumer success.
What we actually see: 370 BTC a week on LocalBitcoins, which is negligible in the context of the country.
The closest to a verifiable claim: that miners who were stealing electricity were arrested. Of course, stealing the electricity has long been a favoured Bitcoin mining strategy.
Immutability causes bitcoin to have no counter party risk, just like gold. It has limited supply, similar to gold. Along with all the other money-like properties of gold.
Yet it is far more portable and accessible.
He's not disputing that smart people work on it, or that there aren't variations on Bitcoin, and so pointing those things out doesn't respond to his article.
You can disagree with him as you can disagree with anything, but if you want to support the argument that it's "awful", you'll need to do better.