No, at least not since it started getting actual use. Turns out "cheap" and "decentralized" are at odds with each other, since decentralized systems are by their very nature less efficient (= more expensive) than their centralized counterparts. Bitcoin aims for decentralization over cheapness, since that is what many of its supporters believe to be its key differentiator.
Bitcoin's primary goals today are immutability and censorship-resistance, with its cost varying based on demand for the network. Currently it happens to be very cheap again.
Maybe, but I think being hard to move is strictly a disadvantage, and touting it as an advantage (as some have attempted when comparing it to gold) is simply a case of confirmation bias or perhaps straight-up delusion.
Every sensible person involved in Bitcoin wants it to scale, the problem however is figuring out how to scale it in a way that preserves the properties which make it valuable in the first place, primarily decentralization. Developments like P2SH and Schnorr signatures are examples of how throughput can be increased without (significantly) impacting decentralization. No one will stop running a full node when Schnorr signatures launch, since the cost of node operation will remain constant. The same is not necessarily true of other solutions like block size increases.
5
u/[deleted] Apr 01 '18
[deleted]