Quote from: reasonspace on Today at 12:44:45 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that I should have as a starting premise, "Bitcoin is money"?

Hint: Cash means money, maybe you should look at what it was initially designed as(whitepaper) to understand what the creator tried to achieve. See you dont have to believe its money, but this hint can maybe save you some time, because evaluating a monetary good is in complete contrast to evaluting some resource. Money is non-productive by nature, while resources are. For the success as money the monetary functions are the deciding factor.

You cant eat your money, cant drink it, cant do anything with it, except maybe wiping your ass. Wood is amazing resource and you can use it for many things, but try using it as money and you will fail hard. The irony is that any rational personal woud still prefer money over an actual resource(that can do something), because you can acquire any resource you want with it. Also some worthless paper won over gold, how can you explain it?

Quote from: reasonspace on Today at 12:44:45 AM

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"?

You should, but reality doesnt care if you just feel right and put too much emphasis on false assumptions.

Quote from: reasonspace on Today at 12:44:45 AM

1. The commodity (or ornamental) value of gold ensures that there will always be a buyer of last resort.

This doesnt matter much for money. The commodity use of gold is what? Maybe 1 trillion a year(i didnt check an accurate number), while the market cap is over 11 trillion big. Giving us a monetary premium of 91%. Your last resort buyer wouldnt matter, if you lost 90% of your wealth. And when ellaborating money optimizing for the last resort is counterproductive, because its there to function in a civilization, in an acopalypse you will worry about resources and not money.

Quote from: reasonspace on Today at 12:44:45 AM

It is the gun

Its not lmao, now youre drifting in pseudo-intellectual bs. Force doesnt indicate any value, how much value does it have when you take the gun away? If i gave you 500.000$ would you refuse it, because you werent forced? Gold is a terrible medium of exchange, try to run around with 500.000$ in gold and see how safe/ comfortable it is. Try to pay for a coffee in gold and see how it well it works(hardly divisible). Have some gold coin that isnt popular and dirty and see how fungible it is. There was a practical need to overcome the limitations of gold as money, paper makes using money easier and more efficient. That politicians robbed paper money its beneficial function, doesnt mean it was adopted out of force initially. How does Bitcoin have value right now to people, without putting a gun on peoples head?

Quote from: reasonspace on Today at 12:44:45 AM

Evidence of force's support for 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.)

It doesnt mean a currency cant disappear, but the new currency will still use memory prices. And Menger talked about the natural emergence of money specifically, indicating an evolution taking place, not some authoritarian that just decided one day that money had to be used. Money would emerge again, even without further government intervention, it could even survive a fall of the government. The disappearance of currencies doesnt prove these theories wrong.

Quote from: reasonspace on Today at 12:44:45 AM

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

Nah, price memory means the purchasing power of money isnt a circular assumption, when we keep going back to when no money existed, then we must arrive at a point where the first good to emerge as money had an objective value for something other than being used as money. When money emerges, goods will start to be priced in money and it will stay this way, even if the medium of exchange changes. Bitcoin is a good with completley inelastic supply, so any big volatility is expected, because there isnt any mechanism to stabilise it. No good has a guaranteed fixed price/exchange rate, even if its primariliy used as a medium of exchange.

Im still not satisfied with your refusal of the subjective theory of value, what value would any good have, if we didnt exist?