The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.
We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.
That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.
This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
mostly agree but it's debatable to what degree the payment system needs to evolve. i could argue it's great just where it's at. especially if Bitcoins destiny is to become the world's reserve currency or daily settlement currency btwn nations. that's not really my position as i do see a need to increase block size for the masses to transact but perhaps that's all we need to do.
monkeying around with the source code to get tx times down to 1 min or gain absolute anonymity or to facilitate SC speculation might not be necessary for an all out success of Bitcoin.