Is Bitcoin broken?

To answer this question, it's necessary to go back a bit and analyze one of the key factors that Satoshi Nakamoto wrote in bold letters in his white paper: Bitcoin, a peer-to-peer electronic cash system! Bitcoin was designed to be a peer-to-peer digital cash and have the ability to scale to support more on-chain transactions and reduce transaction fees.

But something has changed in the course of the greatest discovery of all time in the decentralized economic field, making Bitcoin somewhat obsolete and mainly incapable of being what Satoshi aimed for the currency. Today, many proponents of the currency claim that Bitcoin is a store of value and, consequently, an asset that is not capable of supporting transactions for a network of its caliber.

The Bitcoin blockchain is limited to only a few transactions, and when a boom occurs on the network, congestion is inevitable. Let's be frank and objective: how could a blockchain with a limited capacity of only 1 MB want to implement protocols such as BRC-20 tokens and registration ordinals in a time like this?

Something is not right, and there seems to be a little confusion among die-hard supporters of the currency. While some see this as innovation (implementation of the BRC-20 protocol and ordinals inscriptions), others preach these developments as spam to the network. Spam because it was already predicted that fees would burst at the seams, and congestion would take your breath away on the network.

Let's imagine that at the moment I write this article, pending transactions are over 400,000, and fees have reached historical values, standing at over $48! With fees at these levels and significant congestion, how could the network withstand so much pressure?

Some will suggest that Bitcoin will maximize prioritizing the Lightning Network and transaction acceleration, and prioritizing transactions with higher fees to try to relieve the blockchain, but will these methods solve the problem or just buy time?

Honestly, for me, these options will only buy time but never solve the network's problem. After all, solving is a definitive act, not a temporary act, and will always depend on usability by the community and blockchain companies. As a billion-dollar network, network usage will always be very high, and this problem will always be recorded.

Think for yourselves: the current stage of the network reflects the bear market, and if it's in a bull market? How will the network be?

If today the network exceeded the transaction size it can handle by capacity, recording massive congestion with fees exceeding $48, what will happen to the network in a bullish market? This is a fair question to ask because developers rushed to implement protocols such as BRC-20 tokens and ordinals but forgot the important part, Bitcoin does not scale.

Therefore, we can conclude that Bitcoin faces a significant scalability problem that limits its ability to be used as peer-to-peer electronic cash, as originally conceived by Satoshi Nakamoto. Although some currency advocates have proposed solutions such as the Lightning Network and prioritizing transactions with higher fees, these options may only buy time and not solve the underlying problem.

The growing use of the network and the implementation of new protocols, such as BRC-20 tokens and ordinals, may further exacerbate congestion and increase fees. Overall, it is evident that the scalability issue needs to be addressed more comprehensively and effectively for Bitcoin to achieve its potential as a truly decentralized electronic cash system. Or, just use Bitcoin Cash and other Peer To Peer cash around the ecosystem, after all, they work as intended.

So, what's your opinion on this issue on the Bitcoin network? Is it broken or not?

____________

Disclaimer: the article constitute my own opinions and isn't suggest in any way to be compared or used to a probably justified failed investment, remember always DYOR and stay safe.