The fourth condition means it must already be considered a value before it can be used as a currency. If there isn’t independent support for its having value, the claim that Bitcoin has value is circular. See below:
1. Bitcoin is a value because it can be used as a currency.
2. Bitcoin can be used as a currency because it is a [long-term stored] value.
Second, the fact that Bitcoin is finite doesn’t by itself make it a value. Scarcity does not determine whether something is a value or not. Scarcity only determines the price of something that is already determined to be a value because of another reason. For example, certain forms of toxic waste may be scarce but that doesn’t mean the waste is a value.
It’s not circular your assumptions are just off. The two criterias for a store of value are:
1. Scarcity(Supply relative to other goods).
2. Durability(No loss in functionality with repeated use).
These two alone don’t determine if the market will assign value to it, or if this will be used as money over everything else, but you can determine how good of a store of value it is with these. But to be actually used as one, it needs actual use by the market, and for this other conditions need to be met first.
We are in agreement that scarcity and durability are necessary but insufficient conditions. We don't agree that
other condition (if this is indeed your position) is for people to say that it is valuable. This is the subjective theory of value that I've refuted in my original post.
I invite you to take a look at the argument map that I created to help me write the article to see the circular loop more obviously.