Please don’t take my lack of comment on your other points as agreement, but I only want to respond to this point because it is so much more important than the other points. This is because the validity of the subjective theory of value affects more things than just Bitcoin.

To answer your question of, “What value would any good have if we didn’t exist?” The answer is: No value.

I wrote in a response to another person that value requires the existence of a value. More specifically, a thing is a value when it supports that person’s life, and a thing is a disvalue if it harms that person’s life.

Now you’re probably thinking, so doesn’t this prove that value are subjective in that it is dependent on the subject? For example, a large piece of cheesecake may be a value to a healthy 20 years old subject, but a disvalue to a 60 years old with diabetes subject.

I say no because this is not what the term subjective means when use in conjunction with the term objective. Subjective means independent of facts (i.e., to go by feelings) and objective means dependent on facts.

Now, if you were to ask, “So who, other than the subject determines whether something is an value to that subject or not?” I would respond with, anybody with access to the facts could make that determination. For example, it’s not hard for me to draw the conclusion that the crack Mr. X is taking is a disvalue to him even if Mr. X disagrees and feels like it is a value because it serves the purpose of helping him evade some sort of psychological pain. If I were to use a more ambiguous example of marijuana, I would say that it’s harder for me to draw this conclusion about Mr. Y usage of it since I don’t know if he’s using it to evade some sort of psychological pain (which would make it a disvalue since it delays the requirement for him to address that pain) or if he’s using it to numb physical pain to which he has no other way to deal with.

So as you can see, I agree with you that value requires a valuer; but to be objective it also requires facts too.