This conflict is easily resolved by decoupling payment systems from the store of value that they carry. For example the Visa network lets merchants "get the trade out of the way" in an instant but the clearing time of the underlying capital may take a day or two. That doesn't mean that Visa is now suddenly a new form of money, it's just that it's a trade facilitator.

 Bitcoin's monetary model is fixed and can't be changed. It's a type 2, deflationary store of value and not designed for price stability. In fact if it was keeping prices stable it wouldn't be doing its job because you couldn't then store value against prices denominated in the prevailing national currency.

This is where I think things are more political and subjective. I just think that Roger Ver has confused bitcoin's role as a store of value with its potential to function as a payments system.

Gold performed this function in the age of physical markets. It was a "physical bitcoin". But prior to 2009, only ownership could be traded electronically and that was a huge obstacle to global asset trading because you needed the trusted party. That's bitcoin's strength - asset mobility. Doesn't really matter if it takes 20 minutes to confirm from that perspective because the fact that you can do it at all is so huge.

Given that background, however, there is also a "usability issue" to some extent. i.e.people to need to move bitcoin around the place and there are many cases where slow confirmation simply inhibits certain business models so I do think it's an issue, but for useability, not for store of value.

It all comes down to WHY people want it and my first point about store of value vs payment systems. Payment systems are a redundant resource (easy to reproduce cheaply), stores of value are not.