It's a never ending discussion whether bitcoin is a "store of value" or a "medium of exchange" and both parties have good amount of viable arguments in their kitty so it is impossible to actually determine the type here! However, I really like the article, hope to read more from you!

Franky made a valid statement - "bitcoin moving away from real bitcoin medium of exchange, to just being a 'store' is the foolish narrowminded thoughts of those who dont understand the complexities of finance and asset valuation."  

I somewhat agree with the statement, but at the same time, I want to ask, if a particular asset (Digital or physical) doesn't have a store of value, or if it is not promissory by some regulatory body, how can it be used as a "medium of exchange"?? Why would someone be interested in accepting that asset as a medium of exchange??

Like Franky mentioned that gold has a store of value because of the cost of acquisition, same goes with bitcoin as well. Similar to Gold, bitcoin also has a cost of acquisition (Mining) and that's how the bottom line value of bitcoin can be derived. And because it has a "store of value due to cost of acquisition", it can be used as a "medium of exchange"! Both goes hand in hand if the rule of economy implies!