You are as dishonest as always
If so, I have good competition!
BTW, last time I checked, you have yet to answer my response to your charge that I was somehow dishonest (because I dealt with monetary issues you don't seem to understand,) and you have yet to provide the explanation I requested about key features of the gold standard, to prove you have a basic understanding of money.
At first you started talking about the money issued by the state (otherwise known as fiat) and then, all of a sudden, you switched to gold and gold standard. Gold as money is not issued by the state, period. Other than that, yes, the state monopolized fiat money (or soft currency if you are going to pick on the word fiat) since it had monopoly on the means of communication. Privately issued money (or publicly if it is beyond the state's control as Bitcoin) without the capacity of transferring value over distance is set to lose to any fiat currency which doesn't get abused too much
The gold standard was never about gold. It was about protecting the stability of state-issued paper money. The system has been, and will always be, focused on protecting the power and wealth of the state-bank alliance among the elites. That is, until the people wake up.
The gold standard was the chief protector of state-issued money. When the British government publicly stood behind their pound by pledging to redeem it for a fixed amount of gold on request, you had faith in their pound. Even more importantly, gold earned no interest, so you kept your savings in sterling. (Of course, this gave the British elites all the incentives to keep issuing pounds until such redemption became completely hopeless, by 1931. Oh, BTW, it just happened, what followed was the most economically painful period of recent Western history, but, of course, it had absolutely nothing to do with state money. Nothing.)
So you're saying the chief enabler of the state monetary monopoly was communications? So now state money is no longer a monopoly? And you say *I'm* dishonest? I might be guilty of missing the state takeover of Bell or AT&T, but would like to hear the whole story...
On the face of it, who is more likely to be dishonest? Someone who argues in favor of elite-issued money, or someone who argues for state-free money?