But even ignoring the fact that your arguments have nothing to do with the topic, your arguments are flat out illogical. Why do you assume that they could've exchanged the goods at a higher price? If Bob and Alice both needs 4 hours' worth of food and 4 hours' worth of water to survive, neither will be willing to let go of more than 4 hours' worth of each resource no matter what medium of exchange your using, whether that is barter or through fiat, bitcoins, gold, or anything else. They are not going to agree to starve to death.
(Red colorization mine.)
1. The topic is money, and I'm (more-than-less) keyboarding about money.
2. It would seem that there is no true Scotsman after all. (I.e., you changed the hypothetical,
post initial proposition, to specifically preclude my objection - indulging the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.)
3+. (I evaluate discourse in that manner wherein one would evaluate a mathematical proof: address objection [2].)
lol, just give up. It has nothing to do with the "scotsman fallacy". What it is, is proof by contradiction. I've shown cases where your argument is invalid, and therefore it is invalid. Again, it has nothing to do with the argument to begin with even if what you said is internationally logically consistent.
You haven't given a clear, concise and UNDERSTANDABLE statement/description of what it is you are trying to argue. "About money" is not an argument.
And a word of advice: I hope you don't talk like this in real life. Besides, language is a means of communication. If you can't communicate your message clearly to the intended audience, it isn't the fault of the audience, but your own fault for not being smart enough to communicate effectively.