Hector Martin

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.

You're declaring it a failure whilst it's in trouble and before it's failed (with fixes in pipeline). You're declaring it stupid for not having magical properties no-one knows how to achieve. Current problems are temporary. But you can still use it.

Incidentally, can you reference that O(n3) scaling thing, I've not heard that one before and it doesn't seem obvious to me.

There are N people in the network. As N grows, each individual person also has more potential people to transact with - transactions would be O(N²). Since each person has a copy of all transaction history, the network requires O(N³) storage overall.

Number of transactions is number of people squared? Nah. That implies that the newborn will transact with every person on the planet. Let N be number of transactions. Number of full nodes is constant. Therefore O(n) storage.