The developers are actively trying move away from the original vision "p2p digital cash" to simply a "store of value".

Therefore the fees are often too high, and the confirmations can be delayed a lot unless you pay a lot, for it to be very useful. For example it often doesn't make much sense to pay for games on steam using Bitcoin as the fees take a large portion of the payment.

I'm so tired of this uninformed critique.

How do you propose we increase throughput on a competitive space without compromising the byzantine fault tolerance of the bitcoin network?

Go on, I'll wait.

It isn't just 'make the blocks bigger'. That's like telling a developer to just ship more code. We didn't scale the early internet by making packets bigger. Open your mind and stop repeating things you read just because you read it. Think for yourself and if you are uninformed about a technology then do not open your mouth to speak. You don't reach scale and adjust a hundred billion dollar network by hacking fixes, you do it by carefully making calculated changes with science and testing behind your decisions. The developers working on bitcoin today have done more to contribute to the growth of bitcoin than detract and the sheer volume and scale are unprecedented. Nobody is equipped to say one solution is obviously better.

that it's trying to be a currency when it clearly doesn't cut it as one - just like gold used to be but is impractical now.

also china.

Interesting how even with good foundations, a tech is not good until tested at large.