>CNBC lists bitcoin price next to the S&P. It's up infinity percent. There are regulated financial products. If asked at the time he would have unequivocally said those things would not have happened because bitcoin was going to fail because he was dead wrong.
there is a difference between "succeeding somewhat in the original goal" and "succeeding in a way different from the original goal all together". the former seems to closer to start ups that made it big - they had a product that became successful even if the endproduct isn't 100% as the original product
with bitcoin, wasn't (isn't?) the original goal to create an alternative to mainstream financial system? just based off the example you listed, among other things, it seems like Bitcoin has completely 100% has failed in that regard since it's just become another feature of the mainsteam financial system
sure bitcoin and crypto are still here, but they're just another asset class at this point. sure it's not "failure" - it certainly is successful by a different set of metrics from the original, but I'm sure this isn't what Satoshi had in mind
Who’s to say what “the original goal” was? Satoshi wasn’t that vocal and explicit about their vision in many ways.
As for the early community, there may be as many narratives as there were bitcoiners.
And even if satoshi would have posted a more explicit manifesto, who’s to say that they are the authority to dictate the goals of a project they abandoned almost a decade ago and that others have picked up?
Saying “nobody buys their coffee settled and priced in bitcoin; that was the whole point and should have happened in <10 years” is simply a straw man.
Hell, several of the “failures” points the author brings up are considered features by some.
The existence of permissionless and liquid cryptocurrency markets have political and economic implications. That you do not agree with them does not make it a failure; you just have a different perspective.
All that aside, I think it’s too early still to call Bitcoin’s success or failure.
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."
That’s been the case for years. One self-hostable payment
solution is btcpayserver (also supports lightning).
(PayPal recently rolled out allowing users to use crypto assets including btc for any PayPal payments but arguably that is not “real adoption” in context of payments, as merchants still get paid in fiat with PayPal’s partner Paxos acting as intermediaries)
there is a difference between "succeeding somewhat in the original goal" and "succeeding in a way different from the original goal all together". the former seems to closer to start ups that made it big - they had a product that became successful even if the endproduct isn't 100% as the original product
with bitcoin, wasn't (isn't?) the original goal to create an alternative to mainstream financial system? just based off the example you listed, among other things, it seems like Bitcoin has completely 100% has failed in that regard since it's just become another feature of the mainsteam financial system
sure bitcoin and crypto are still here, but they're just another asset class at this point. sure it's not "failure" - it certainly is successful by a different set of metrics from the original, but I'm sure this isn't what Satoshi had in mind