The history as described by the research of Nick Szabo tells it differently, or some of it. The "assets" that were used as Medium of Exchange were collectibles, and because they were Stores of Value, they became the preferred Medium of Exchange. Because how could there be a social consensus develop around an "asset" to be a Medium of Exchange if the asset itself is not a Store of Value? Why would I trade my drugs with you if your Medium of Exchange is a common rock? If the rock has a Store of Value component, like a diamond, we can talk.
limited utility tribal communities of a small subset era are what you/he describe
i included kingdoms, empires and government controlled versions..
Limited if compared to empires and kingdoms, yes, but it still makes the point that collectibles, and assets as Stores of Value according to social consensus, were wanted, were desired, and were used as Mediums of Exchange because they had value. I believe Bitcoin is taking this path.
i think you forget to realise that many cultures of forms of kingdoms, empires and governments have existed for THOUSANDS of years
I didn't forget. Medium of Exchange that's issued, endorsed, and their value assured by a Government is also desirable, and for that it has become something valuable. A path impossible for Bitcoin. Because it's not backed by a Government, I believe Bitcoin has to have value as a Store of Value first if it's to be a Medium of Exchange.
oh and diamonds are not worth the PRICE you pay.
I agree, and I merely used it as an example to make a point. It's either the common rock, or the diamond to trade for the drugs. Which one would the drug dealer accept as payment?