I didn't say that it isn't working as advertised. I am looking at my post again, and I wrote it in a silly way which seems to have confused you.
Honestly, it's difficult to be confused about the quote I posted
To be completely fair, is the network not working as advertised? Yes, it is.
It was a simple question with a short direct answer, I did not know you didn't mean it, or that it was a sort of sarcasm, I thought you really meant the network is not working as advertised. good that you cleared the statement further.
but the second one isn't good enough. People in some countries would be happy if they earned $200 in a full month of work, and paying $20 in fees would be a small fortune for them. Unacceptable, unless the future of Bitcoin is to be used by the rich and those in the Western nations.
Unfortunately doesn't solve poverty issues, does it? it simply gives you a means of payment that are not controlled by a single entity, whether someone can afford to use it or not is beyond the inner workings of
BTC, it all boils down to simple economics, blocks will have to increase in size at some point the future there is no denial about it, it's only a matter of time before everyone who opposed block size limit change (including myself) will get to the point where we can no longer hold to that thought.
There might be other things that need reassessment, an example would be the difficulty epoch length, one of the reasons why fees got pretty high this week is because in the first few days of this epoch, we were finding 6% less block, in other words, the average time between blocks was 10.6 mins rather than just 10, it could have been worse if say 20% of the hashrate was lost, fewer blocks found per x timespan = more fees needed, so at some point in time we may need to see if the 2016 blocks rule is good enough or if we should change it to something like 1008 so in case we lose 20-30% of the hashrate we won't be having 13 mins block intervals for nearly 20 days till the next epoch adjustment.
However, doing that and increasing the block size just due to a wave of BRC-20 transactions that might not last beyond 1 week isn't the wisest thing to do, but eventually, when this becomes the norm and paying 200-500 sat/Vbyte isn't something that lasts for just a few days, we are going to have to increase the block size, still however, that won't allow "everyone" to use the main blockchain for every transaction, it also won't solve every problem that
BTC faces to become widely accepted for daily payments, we are going to need to compromise a huge portion of the security to achieve that, sidechains or different layer solutions will be a MUST if we want transactions of small values to make sense in the future.