Failure is on people who don't ride the wave where the price is still cheap, I guess they can not have easy access anymore whenever it is in the forum Earning, Trading, and Investing I guess it is too hard for them to really ride this kind of opportunity, Well I don't think that the technology of Blockchain is a failure because we can see that there are other uses for it instead of just using it on Online Ledger And these companies are highly positive with the technology of Blockchain.

There lot more thing you can do with bitcoin, maybe just not for a daily basis and buy something at the coffee shop. So I don't think its a failure at all, there's a lot of services I usually pay with my card and now I pay it using bitcoin, the fee is always cheaper if I pay using bitcoin.
Anyway go using lightning if you want to use send a small amount of BTC with "zero fees"

If bitcoin was a failure then how did I pay for most of what I have? How come I made something of myself? I found something I am passionate about because everything else just bores me to death.
I found a career path and a way forward to a better life. It suites me too. I don't like to go to work so working from wherever I am is such a great gift. It has made using the internet easier for me and made transactions so simple. Being paid and paying others is wonderous now. We live in a world we can earn money doing all kinds of odd weird and wonderful things. Imagine trying to explain to people of the last two generations how we make money out of "thin air" HAHAHHA those of you here long enough know exactly what I am referring to. xP

They should give us an example of any technology where they pay "almost-zero fee" transactions with other payment services out there, before they can say that about Bitcoin. Everything from Diners club to credit cards to PayPal has some kind of fee structure to pay for their expenses to run that system.

The Lightning Network is the closest we will ever come to a "almost-zero fee" transaction scenario, but it is still in it's development stage to sort out some teething problems. Crypto currencies will always need some remuneration or reward system that would need to be funded by someone else to fund the transaction volume on the network.  

I probably don't know enough about the subject, so please be patient with me.

I'm not defending Satoshi, but maybe he thought that BTC's rising value (it is deflationary by design after all) would offset the loss in mining revenue of the decreasing block rewards? I mean, I'd bet that 3 BTC 5 years from now would still be a lot more valuable than 50 BTC from a few years ago. I understand that mining costs are also increasing, but isn't that what the difficulty adjustment is for? It ensures that there will always be financial incentive for miners, regardless of transaction fee revenue.

I concede that transaction fees will have to rise, and that micro transactions won't be plausible at some point anymore (nor would it indicate failure). My concern is that it still has to be cheap enough as to not be detrimental to adoption. My views may be a little too naive though (like how Satoshi's may be lol), so I would appreciate any insight.

I believe there are some people in the community who are in the standpoint that "Bitcoin isn't successful" unless they can use it for $20 per transaction for only vaulting it up. But is it truly a failure?


the silly thing is those that want expensive fee's go to extremes of stifling bitcoin and then blaming bitcoin for it(pretending bitcoin is AI and it stifled itself). they then go to extremes of thinking those that want regular use of bitcoin want it to buy google adsense at 0.001cent a tx

the even stranger thing is that its not even the pools that want excessive fees right now.
the even stranger thing is that when pools do rely on fee's they can set their min fee without care about blocksize

the real reality is if a tx fee is more than an hourly wage in any country. its automatically pushed that country out from viewing bitcoin as viable
entertaining alternative networks as the solution is not a bitcoin solution. its an altcoin solution

If we'll be keen and observant in the movement of Bitcoin, we could notice how things have changed that fast so considering Bitcoin as failure is really being too narrow.
We can't eliminate fees that fast and we could rely success on lowest fees. We should focus on its development and just appreciate how bitcoin works for us these days.

Should we really expect a zero-fee transactions with bitcoin? I think that it is impossible for now because every transaction has to be confirmed and each confirmation carries a cost. However, I think there is already an experiment where transaction is done P2P or from one gadget to another and the wallet is within the gadget...but I am not so sure if this can get popular. As for me, bitcoin is not successful if it is not being used or traded by the people. There is still a long story for bitcoin and I am sure that its history can last a lifetime. Judging the way it is now is not doing it justice as we are only experiencing the tip of the iceberg.

No, no. This is not a failure, but it is more unique to Bitcoin, because it is a digital currency and different from others. I think bitcoin is more suitable for large-scale transactions or digital transactions, but if you pay coffee with bitcoin and want zero costs. Then you can use Nano because this platform hears hearing a zero fee service. Isn't crypto not just bitcoin, so nano is more suitable for that.

It failed on some aspects but succeded in most parts. Bitcoin effectively disrupted the financial scene, helped the unbanked gained some footing on the uneven playing field of today's economy, redistribute wealth (kinda) and a transfer of value. We might not be having little to no fees in sending bitcoin here and there, but compared to banks, bitcoin is still faster and cheaper, especially when sending in large amounts from point A to point B.