His point referred to distribution not division. The only value that Bitcoin has, beyond niches, is that ascribed to it in supplanting something else of value and this remaining so.
You are really reaching here. Go back and read the first post. Most of it is about division, not distribution. And his summary at the end even makes it clear that he is talking about the "limited supply".
Perhaps you are reading what you want to read, rather than what was actually written?
You have two choices, as do I. The first is to maintain the myths for as long as possible, make what you will of good fortune (and perhaps work, I dont know you and don't dispute efforts expended), continue facilitating zero-sum intellectual and capital investment and waste an incredible opportunity for crytocurrencies to revolutionise finance and personal empowerment that would far surpass short-term personal gains. The second is to recognise that if bitcoins are not scarce because they may be replicated (for all intents and purposes, with just a name change) then what is their value, or if they are scarce then people will find something else to use instead; and thus something needs to change.
I can make no sense of this, which is strange because all of the words are familiar to me. If you'd like to try to restate it more clearly, feel free. Oh, and your dilemma in the second part is false: scarceness is
necessary for money.
Thats up to you, but please dont assume everybody is an idiot.
I never assume that anyone is an idiot
until they've given me a reason. In fact, if you read my posting history, you can see for yourself that I have a tendency to chastise people for underestimating the public (this comes up often in the many many threads about naming the fractions).
P.S. Confusion does not imply idiocy. Money is hard to understand, very few people really "get" it, but I suspect that most people
can if they put in the effort.