The network is being used to capacity and fees are being determined by a market, which values capacity at an increasing premium! What a failure! (sarcasm intend

The network is being used to capacity and fees are being determined by a market, which values capacity at an increasing premium! What a failure! (sarcasm intended) Hearn's post may be technically accurate in terms of the data he's collected. But the conclusions he draws are not correct. Usually in any entrepreneurial project, the fact that the service is over-subscribed and increasingly valuable is a sign of success. If one views bitcoin as an open-source project which should have some ideal technical implementation, then yes Hearn has failed to convince everyone to run his preferred implementation of bitcoin, or to agree on exclusively running a different protocol that is not bitcoin while calling it bitcoin. There is plenty of room for Hearn to run a bitcoinXT altcoin. The only failure here is one of logic, forced by the concept that there can be only one successful network based on nakamoto consensus protocol, and that that network must either be bitcoin or a replacement bitcoin which supplants the original.