An interesting comparison is to look at how long it took gold to be accepted, in various human eras, since both Bitcoin and gold are emergent monies (unlike fiat). Keep in mind, gold had a 5,000 years head start.

Granted, information travels much faster now with the Internet. But I think 10-15 years is still on the overly optimistic side. Bitcoin probably needs to be tested a few more times in crisis situations. People need to see how it holds up against other currencies with their own eyes, and learn the hard way not to bet against it, again and again and again. Only then it will be widely accepted.

I'd give it 30-50 years. In 50 years, the majority of people alive would have been born After Bitcoin (AB).

(And even after that, it still might not count as a "failure").

Money has three functions Store of value - BTC succeeded Medium of exchange - BTC succeeded measure of value - we still calculate the value of goods and services in usd

No, because it's a store of value on a long, difficult, and organic path to medium of exchange. Many projects think they can leapfrog these steps. I posit that bitcoin will have failed if on the other side of monetization, the censorship resistance, bearer assurances, and permissionless property rights have been stripped. That's what I'm here for. Ask yourself: if today bitcoin had monetized, and the confidence curve (volatility) was flat, and the bitcoin commodity money itself moved more or less with global GDP, and appreciated on average 3% a year, and the quote price was around $30k, what would you be doing? What's the purpose of bitcoin beyond its first principles on the other side of monetization? There isn't one without the first principles, we might as well have a global CBDC; we will have created frankly, something worse than fiat, and must start over. At least that's how I see it, and another reason I'm critical of crypto, as it's a subject to ponder what lay beyond speculation.

In combat, I had some close calls and learned the hard way that life is short. So I don't ascribe too much meaning to my own lifespan, just hope to find peace and leave behind happy, healthy children with better opportunities. If I'm unable to give them better opportunities with bitcoin by the end of life, then perhaps I'll consider myself a failure first before discounting bitcoin's utility.

No.

I don’t think you can put freedom money away now.

As long as my savings are not debased Bitcoin is successful.

Bitcoin could take 100 years for that, doesn't mean it won't be wildly successful in the mean time

Maybe.

all things take time took a long time for us to get to this point with dollars eventually when the people realize what true value is and scarcity is then they will be able to see bitcoin as both a unit of account and a long term saving for their time and energy until then they will have fun staying poor while the ones who fall into bitcoin enjoy true freedom and live life

No. There's no timeframe on which I will consider it failed based on this metric.

This is like saying most trips aren't taken by plane or helicopter, therefore flight is a failed technology. Nevermind the fact that it's revolutionized travel and communications and literally gives people the superpower to cross entire countries in comfort at hundreds of miles per hour.

Just like flight, bitcoin has had so many successes that I couldn't consider it a failure for an arbitrary metric it has yet to achieve. It created a sustaining, practical, decentralized network with distributed consensus despite the Byzantine general's dilemma - success! It monetized from zero to hundreds of billions of dollars - incredible! Bitcoin has established itself as a digital store of value independent of any central backer - wild!

I think bitcoin has staying power and so long as there are no good alternatives, simple game theory suggests it will continue to see additional adoption over time. But even if it completely stalls out in adoption and fails to gain the mantle of the global standard for exchange, that can't take away from the fact that it already:

These are incredible achievements, revolutionary even. How could we consider the technology that brought them to be a failure?

No. It's already failed. No one wants THE ENTIRE WORLD to know the same address/account they sent a donation to the "girl scouts" is also the one they used to buy their "big tit grannies" collection with. It's hard to use, and harder to use privately

This is the way non-technical people would use it, all the evidence and history proves that. Normies want KYC'd, easy onboarding cheap fees with refunds/accountability, with privacy that can be enforced by a central authority who can be sued for damages in case their porn habits are leaked.

Another thing is, bitcoin has already failed in being something a state accepts as a tax payment (Outside el salvadore and Japan i think). It's like the biggest mafia in the world not accepting gold for their "safety" donation but accepting the indentured slavery of your children instead. The argument that all the governments of the world will have to fail and force bitcoin adoption is... wishing for tragedy.

That's ok for bitcoin tough, Bitcoin can be a store of value (more precisely a store of a unit of account Since even if it goes to 0 you still claim x.yy BTC), immutable,deflationary, all the other good stuff while another solution does the actual fungible untraceable stuff, and another does the tax stuff.

What bitcoin does is give us an option that did not exist before, beyond the standard manipulation abilities of the state. They can manipulate gold, silver, fiat, oil futures. Bitcoin is pure demand signal, for now, even with washtrading, (that is still demand) contributing to the signal with no one able to increase or decrease supply at will.

This means mass adoption could never happen, inflation could stay the same and never hyper inflate, and bitcoin would still go way up in value and be around, the way gold and platinum are not "Mass adopted."