Everything that you quoted from the whitepaper is still true.
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash
Yep. Still peer-to-peer. Still electronic. Still cash.
would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another
Yep. Can still send directly from one party to another.
without going through a financial institution.
Yep. Transactions still complete without any need for a financial institution.
Digital signatures provide part of the solution,
Yep. Still using digital signatures.
but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
Yep. Still don't need a trusted third party to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work,
Yep. Still using proof-of-work with an ongoing chain to timestamp transactions.
forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work.
Yep. Still impossible to change the record without re-doing all the proof-of-work.
The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power.
Yep. Still using the longest valid chain. Longest chain is still proof that it came from the largest pool of hashing power.
As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.
Yep. Bitcoin is still vulnerable to a 51% attack, and as long as the majority is not cooperating to
attack the network, Bitcoin is still secure.
The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis,
Yep, the network is still only minimally structured, and messages are on a best effort basis.
and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will,
Yep. My node still leaves and rejoins the network all the time.
accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
Yep. Longest proof-of-work is still reliable proof of what happened.
FURTHERMORE, YOU FORGOT TO QUOTE THIS PART OF THE WHITEPAPER:The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.
What do you know, the exact thing you are complaining about (transaction fees) are described right there in the whitepaper.
Lets take a look at the rest of your nonsense post:
What's the purpose of letting the transaction pool to get so full to have transactions falling out of the pool,
What transaction pool? Please show me in the whitepaper where is says anything about a "transaction pool".
Bitcoin doesn't have a "transaction pool".
having the fees so high
How exactly are you going to decide what fee I am willing to pay?
that we have a limit on the minimum transaction and some exchanges stopping the withdrawals because of the network congestion?
That's just a business decision. It has nothing to do with the Bitcoin protocol. Exchanges could just pass the cost of fees on to their users if they want to.
While for someone transferring 100k might be acceptable to pay a $60 fee to see their transaction approved there are so many people that would love to be able to invest $100 or $200 which in many countries might be more than a monthly salary or their life savings.
The protocol doesn't set the fees. The users do. There is limited space available in a block for transactions. If someone is willing to pay for the space, they get it.
To the states of art bitcoin is not this anymore,
Of course it is.
it doesn't allow online payments
It allows online payments to anybody that is willing to pay a competitive price for block space. That's all it was ever intended to do.
and since a transaction with a low fee can fall off the pool the double spending is more than a reality.
Double spending of a confirmed transaction is an impossibility unless there is a 51% attack. This has always been true. This is still true. If you are choosing to accept unconfirmed transactions, then you are choosing to expose yourself to that risk. That has always been true. That is still true.
Am I reading the wrong whitepaper?
I get the impression that you are not reading it at all. You are imagining what you want bitcoin to be for you, and complaining that it isn't living up to your expectations. Perhaps if you took the time to set your expectations properly (by actually reading the whitepaper), you wouldn't be so disappointed.
if not what's the reason for letting bitcoin get so distant from the whitepaper?
Distant in what way?
What can we do to have it back on track?
It is on track.
