Thanks for the measured reply. Crypto journalism is a real minefield, most people have vested interests and of course its all completely new to everyone.
I do generalise with terms like security and currency, because bitcoin is actively changing semantics and moving the goal posts in the field - another journalistic frustration.
The personal reason I would like to see bitcoin as a currency is that it could have tremendous force to help developing economies and global financial inequality. As a security that may still be true but is limited. If a another crypto-currency can replace bitcoin in this function (because primarily of the time it takes to reach consensus) then the consensus debate will have a very different feel for bitcoin.
My main point stand that a consensus may lead to even higher fees if bitcoin is promoted as a security - encouraging people to hold it - and hold large amounts. These are in conflict with a day to day use of currency to buy milk and bread.
RE: Bitcoin "end game" a mathematical certainty: correcting bad Bitcoin journalism.