The evolution of the marketplace which eschewed commodity money for fiat money (the current situation) is commonly brought up as a repudiation for commodity money by those with a vested interest in maintaining the fiat currency regime. This speaks to my question from the other day.  The issue of commodity money vs. non-commodity money is inherent in the evolution of the use of the commodity as money.  That one commodity was chosen by the market through time as the one which could be universally exchanged for any other commodity is the process which bitcoin cannot replicate.  

If that was indeed the case, then a return to a truly hard money standard is impractical in today's markets, hence the rise of credit money to handle problems of liquidity to clear markets.  

The question to be considered is what is the limitation of commodity money in a world where the property rights of the commodity can be transferred without physical transference of the commodity itself.  This was an issue under the International Gold Standard pre 1914, the necessity of moving large volumes of gold which created demand imbalances for it (or at least that is the claim of credit money apologists).