Hector Martin

That doesn't mean the design didn't introduce valuable new concepts and techniques, but it failed to reach the goal it set out to. You can either consider it a prototype (the designers knew, didn't expect it to get this big) or a failure (they were idiots and didn't foresee this)

My main point is Bitcoin is not, and fundamentally cannot, achieve what people are trying to use it for, and it has vastly outgrown its potential as a design, and the only thing propping it up is moronic investors and speculation.

There are already plenty of other altcoins with differing properties; it remains to be seen if one will fundamentally fix this problem while keeping the benefits or adding its own.

But in the meantime, Bitcoin is already broken, and a ginormous, colossal, unheard of, utterly comical waste of energy, and is absolutely, positively, and clearly not worth the energy that is being invested into it.

So your main point is that you want bitcoin to be faster. Great, well done. The reason it isn't faster is that there is disagreement as to how to do it. Increasing the block size was the original idea and would scale without limit.

Increasing the block size would not scale without limit. Requiring every (full) node in the network to hold the entire transaction introduces an utterly unsustainable O(n³) scaling factor.

Yes there's downsides to just increasing blocksize which is why it's not been done and other options are being looked at. In the meantime it *is* an electronic cash. With challenges, but it's there. Not a failure (yet). Or stupid.

Cash doesn't have a $30 transaction fee. Right *now*, all Bitcoin is is the world's most expensive checking account modality, and a vehicle for speculators.