More than a decade on, approximately nobody uses Bitcoin for normal transactions. Compare with Venmo or MPesa, both of which launched around the same time, to se what actual digital money looks like. Both of those do way more transactions than Bitcoin and are much more widely adopted.
Which is really why bitcoin exists as thing today, in my opinion. It was a way to pay for drugs over the internet.
The rest of the pricing is purely speculation, and it hurts any real utility it might provide.
I found a number of guides on the pros and cons of various international money transfers options, and BTC is often included as an option. I also found some recent (and old!) articles about its use as a remittance system in poorer areas of the world[1].
> Other emerging market central banks in Latin America, India, and Southeast Asia, where remittances make up a significant share of the economy, are in a similar bind. Bitcoin transfers surged in emerging markets last year, as the pandemic accelerated the rise of cheaper, more efficient digital remittance services.
[1]https://qz.com/africa/1983610/bitcoin-draws-millions-of-work...
The goal was "a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash". That is, money.
If you are proposing a new goal, a settlement system for couple hundred named organizations with strong relationships, then a) that's not money, and b) the Bitcoin system is socially and technically wrong for that. But if we keep the goalposts in their original location, Bitcoin is clearly a failure when you look at how the competition has done.
The main alternative would be to issue a Bitcoin backed currency. But then you're just re-creating the gold standard, and all of the problems that go along with that.
Sadly this really is the most nuanced definition of "blockchain" that many people can understand