Clarification: dead and failure are different things. Sorry if I led you to think I meant both.

I am not saying that empty blocks in the future mean Bitcoin has “died”. Bitcoin will persist indefinitely. As long as one full node remains on the network, that’s all it takes. The node that matters is your own. A single CPU is sufficient for mining if there’s no one left with whom to compete. Bitcoin is the technological cockroach that survives any conceivable apocalypse.

When I say that sparse blocks mean failure, I mean “at the goal of becoming the world’s monetary system”. Bitcoin will have failed, IMO, if it does not become the established, predominant, premiere method of synchronizing transaction ordering worldwide.

Fiat currency is analog. Transactions are reversible and ultimately unbacked. Even if backed, backing requires a backer, and pegs were made to be broken.

The superiority of Bitcoin stems from the fact that Bitcoin is the thing itself, and natively digital. It’s not a promise like fiat. It is not a contract like stock. It is not physical like gold. In Bitcoin, ownership is knowledge. You either know the keys or you don’t.

My expectation is that the world will wake up to the fact that there’s exactly one thing no one can make more of (beyond agreed issuance), and that’s Bitcoin. Therefore I conclude that transacting this monumentally important, unique global asset will be incredibly valuable.

The value of Bitcoin transactions (capped by block space) should mean perpetually full blocks with market derived fees. If blocks are empty long term, that signals, to me, that Bitcoin has failed to fulfill its destiny at replacing inferior moneys. (Failure)