I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that I should have as a starting premise, "Bitcoin is money"? And do you also mean that I should not have any supporting argument(s) to prove why this as an epistemic status of "probable" or "certain"? If not, then perhaps you can elaborate more on what you mean.

Thank you for the quoted content. I have disagreements with the content. Here are some of them.

1. The commodity (or ornamental) value of gold ensures that there will always be a buyer of last resort. It will be the "consumer" of that gold. This means that the gold you're holding in your hands is actual wealth and not only some intermediary product that you can exchange with a willing trader for actual wealth in the future. And the fact that gold is used as a medium of exchange (in a free market) just means that the buyer of last resort is willing to forgo the gold because there is greater demand (i.e., someone willing to pay a higher price) for the gold for use as a medium of exchange.

2. Fiat's currency support isn't "memory price". It's legal tender laws, tax laws, price control laws, etc. It is the gun. I also think that loan agreements denominated in that currency also serve to motivate people to collect fiat currency. However, if the gun goes away, then I think that people will shift away from using that currency for the loan agreements. Evidence of fiat currency can be found in their disappearance from use, despite memory prices, for countries that no longer exists (e.g., the Confederacy, South Vietnam after 1975, etc.)

3. Isn't the instability in the exchange rate for Bitcoin a good indicator that the "price memory" theory isn't working?