Then is Bitcoin truly a failure? Without meandering, and the social drama, tell us directly. Because your reply hints that it's a "failure", but the reality is going against the people, like you, that say it.
Going to the other side, without the social drama, would you say that the Bitcoin forks with bigger blocks, and almost-zero fees are truly "successful"?
to address the second point.. your derailing into th social drama of altcoins.. (you keep trying to do this) stay on point please
but to quickly brush over it. if a coin has utility where people want to use it and are happy then its not a failure.
most forks are not popular because they dont have the merchant acceptance and so although theres more buffer(more technical potential) the potential does not reveal success or failure.
the bitcoin technology works fine.
a hashed block has enough strength to give people trust that it makes it hard/near impossible for another party to re-org a fresh chain quickly/easily. thus people will trust if something is confirmed, they can relax and treat it as such,
what people dont realise is there is nothing that commands, enforces that a certain transaction should get included under guarantee.
no fee, no format, no rule ensures a transaction is guaranteed to be confirmed.
mining pools make the decision of what they want to put into a block. they could leave a block empty, or fill it with zero fee's and ignore transactions with fee's.
for instance BTCC had an exchange and for the BTCC exchange withdrawals the BTCC pool would add those transactions in at zero fee and prioritise them. thus ignoring random transactions in the network even if fee's were high. that was their choice.
pools do not ned to fill blocks. they can simply have half filled blocks and set min fee at say 666sats a byte.. or fill a block with an average of 333sats a block to get the same end total value
trying to presume that blocks need to stay at 1mb legacy just to push fee's up is bad economics of HUMANS and nothing to do with bitcoin tech.
bitcoin tech can sort out fee issues without the need to stifle blocksizes.
bitcoin tech can sort out fee issues when pools decide they need income from fee's
right now at an average of 25c a tx 3000 tx=$75
pools wont waste time filling blocks with transactions of 25c if the delay of doing so risks gtting their $100,000 reward
pools would rather empty block if they could to gaina few second advantage to win the $100k rather than fill blocks.
pools only fill blocks for personal moral reasons of putting something into blocks will keep users happy to continue using bitcoin so they have users to buy their $100k reward.
they dont care about fee's as an income. and wont care for decades.
what they do care about is if users are forced into paying too much just to make a transaction that they no longer want to use bitcoin and thus no one wants to buy bitcoin from pools