A lot has changed with respect to how many more people and institutions favor it. All these things you mention will sort themselves out and it won't take 10 years to do it, especially considering the extraordinary amount of people working on solutions
I wish I thought you were correct.
I ask what has changed with the technology or the application of that technology over the last two years. You don't actually answer that question, but you answer instead about institutions that favor it. It wasn't a very specific answer, by the way. The fact of the matter is that there have not been fundamental technological advances in the last two years or more. If anything, some of the potential issues are even more pressing now and unsolved.
The twitter analogy does not work at all, because the technology was far more simple and also much farther along in its development curve. Long before it WAS adopted so widely, the technology was capable of scaling to that adoption level. Bitcoin is not.
Twitter isn't revolutionary. Bitcoin might be. Twitter uses the internet and refines aspects of it. Bitcoin is more like the development of Hypertext Transfer Protocol. Don't forget that buying at $310 in November of 2015 is NOT like being a private market VC buyer of twitter at the very beginning. We're already pretty far into this thing.
It's possible that bitcoin will be higher than $7000 in less than a decade. It's also possible that we'll never see $1000 again ever.
I'm sorry you wish that I were correct. I didn't address the issue of technological advancement because I can't conceive of a reason why these issues will NOT be resolved. You reference things that the protocol can and will updated as needed. There's already plenty of chatter about the potential evolutionary paths of Bitcoin, and they will absolutely come about in some shape or another because the people who participate to secure the network will want Bitcoin to be adopted more widely and thus increase their investment. And it's not just blind faith. It's math.
Statistically speaking, Bitcoin was already supposed to have died like 78 times by now as seen at:
http://www.bitcoinobituaries.comYet it keeps coming back with a vengeance because it was programmed to have a very powerful and distributed resilience.
You referenced the artificial transaction limitation that was set to limit spam in the early days of Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto (the person or the team) envisioned that there could eventually be over 100 million transactions per day. While there should certainly be caution in choosing the best course of action to increase the temporary and artificial transaction limit, I believe that bitcoin will survive these natural growth tribulations YET AGAIN as it has done so time and time before.
The twitter analogy is GREAT. Twitter has had its own adjustments as well along the way. And as you admit, Twitter isn't even revolutionary! And as you also admit, Bitcoin "might be." So there ya go bro! Bitcoin is far more significant and statistically speaking should certainly outperform something so arbitrary as twitter.
Bitcoin has also scaled quite nicely. Moving from $0.001 per bitcoin to $315.00 in 6-7 years, represents a multiplicative factor of 300,000 TIMES GROWTH! That's 30,000,000%! That's a lot of market confidence. I'd say Bitcoin is doing just fine and has demonstrated longevity and the ability to die 78 times and be magically resurrected with greater adoption each time.
Yes, it's possible that bitcoin could fail. But I'm pretty confident given its history. In fact, merely by looking at Bitcoin's history, there should be no reason to even suggest that it's impossible for Bitcoin to make gains so quickly, unless maybe one were shorting the market and invested in its failure (in which case you certainly wouldn't want market confidence at all.)