Excellent quote, well said.  I want to steal that.

FYI, I disagree with both of you regarding the idea that transaction volume is not essential to Bitcoin's growth because Bitcoin can function like gold.  Many things can function like gold and have attempted to do exactly that over human history.  Despite that, there is only one gold.

Gold's dominance is predicated upon nearly 4000 years of acceptance in every commercially-connected location on the planet - to this day, you can exchange gold for local money in nearly any city at almost the same exchange rate.  Doofus-spammer's theory that Bitcoin doesn't need tx volume because it will function like gold ignores the obvious discrepancy between Bitcoin's 8-year, unstable, and limited-acceptance history and gold's massive scope.

Bitcoin **may** function like gold due to its advantages over gold, but almost any other altcoin could function in the exact same manner and surpass Bitcoin and/or gold.  The competing coins must differentiate themselves, and Bitcoin's best differentiation - the first mover advantage and relatively high stability - will be forced to face off against other competing coin's relative ease of transacting.  If Bitcoin becomes decisively more difficult/costly to transact with than competing coins who replicate all other features that Doofus-spammer's theory relies upon, Bitcoin's first mover effect will be eclipsed, and we will all lose.

Bitcoin is in no position to claim that it can win on its merits simple because gold wins on similar merits.