Sure: > A) Bitcoin is congested with transactions and takes hours to process some of them > B) Bitcoin fees are through the roof, it sometimes costs as much as

Sure: > A) Bitcoin is congested with transactions and takes hours to process some of them > B) Bitcoin fees are through the roof, it sometimes costs as much as 25% of the value of a transaction to send it 1- Average fees are not as high as people claim. See https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/fee-estimation?orgId=1&from=now-7d&to=now https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/fee-estimation?orgId=1&from=n... 2- Adoption of SegWit, which allows more transactions per block, will help lower fees 3- No one is forced to use Bitcoin. It is trivial to buy Litecoin instead and use that. However, users choosing to pay high fees shows how much more they value Bitcoin transactions. > C) The upgrades to fix these problems are extremely slow - scaling hasn't been solved for years, because different parties keep fighting for control over the currency codebase and shooting down each others' attempts to upgrade it Your definition of an "upgrade" conflicts with the Bitcoin project's definition, that's all. The core developers are not against a block size increase. However, they have decided to try scaling in ways that do not harm security or decentralization first. It's a matter of priorities. Bitcoin Cash may prioritize low fees over everything else, but Bitcoin prioritizes decentralization and security first. > D) Bitcoin is still, objectively, centralized. Almost all of the miners are based in industrial regions like China, and belong to a small monopoly of mining pools. All of the exchanges are centralized, and are well-known for losing clients' money. The big banks are replaced by big whales, who will do anything in their power to manipulate markets for their gain. Mining is centralized, but Bitcoin nodes are not. This is evident when you look at the success of deploying SegWit by a UASF or the success of fighting off a corporate takeover such as the NYA. > E) Bitcoin addresses the technology perspective of sending money, but doesn't address any of the macroeconomic problems that arise from a deflationary, uncontrolled currency. Bitcoin does not need to be a currency. Most people still invested in it view it as a "digital gold". I think it'll more be a reference point for fiat money, something that forces fiat moneys to have more sane monetary policies, not as a day-to-day currency itself. > F) Bitcoin is not actually anonymous. Data science techniques can parse the blockchain and see sending patterns between different accounts. They map these patterns to various identities. If those identities can be mapped to a real person, say, when they cash out of an exchange, then it's known exactly how much Bitcoin they have. Today, tumblers exist and are fairly easy to use. So yes, Bitcoin can be totally anonymous if you choose to use it that way. For the future, features like Confidential Transactions, MimbleWimble, MAST, Tumble Bit, and so on are in the works.