Don't forget who is Jeff Booth and from where is coming.

I have a lot of respect for your rare. You put your money where your mouth is. 🤝

100%

Thanks man

Care to expand on what you mean by this for those of us who don't know whatever it is you know?

It's not a medium of exchange until its a store of value first. Bitcoin was designed to be a mediun of exchange, but it didn't become a practical medium until it first was a store of value.

False. The history of money, from seashells to silver, is to be a medium of exchange first. After a period of time, trust is built in the medium and is then stored because of the reputation built. That's the concept as promoted by Mises, Menger, Hayeck, and Rothbard. The reason its promoted this way is based off human action, psychology and individual preferences aligning over time. But for some reason, Bitcoiners promote this idea entirely backwards. As if the concept is to never use the money, just to hoard it, thereby neutralizing its ability to be useful in trade. Why this is, I have no idea, but this SoV before MoE flies in the face of human nature and defies logic. Maybe, its entirely possible, that its usefulness as a currency from 2009-2015 showed its desirability and trust that peopledecidesd it was better to store it for later. If that's the logic, I can subscribe to it and would agree. But with an adoption rate of 0.2% of the globe, and the only use for it is an asset backing the dollar as a means of inflating debt, with regression in adoption, I don't think so. Should bitcoin be used as a currency in trade, as it was from 2009-2015, its value would be much high in USD, but also, there would be prices set in bitcoin, giving it legitimacy in exchange and then being a very strong store of value. What's currently promoted is a Speculation of Value. I'm sorry the influencers have lied and promoted this false narrative.

And what do you propose we do about this situation? Because while your points here all seem valid (at least to me), it looks like the majority rules and what you're laying out here just isn't the way things are actually happening.

Three things: 1. Use bitcoin as currency. 2. Continue to promote bitcoin as a currency. 3. Push back against the narrative. They're small, but meaningful, efforts. If you want to add a 4th point, meme the narrative into oblivion.

Well, I hope the status quo shifts in this direction.

Why would someone accept it in a trade if it has no value? What you claim is ridiculous on its face

Yeah he’s got it backwards. Nick Szabo is the one to read on this but the Austrians he mentioned all agree it’s SoV first followed by MoE. The idea is basically something of value would be stored in surplus and traded for other things of value someone had stored in surplus - the best of these stores gravitated towards money in different areas and contexts. Seashells which is his first mention weren’t collected to simply become a Medium of Exchange - they were first a collectable and because they were durable and portable, later became proto-money. It doesn’t make any sense for a MoE of exchange to emerge unless people value it enough that they’re willing to hold it for a period because they believe it will hold its value sufficiently to be traded over time.

That's how trading works. You have something I want. I have something you want. We can exchange goods. You have something I want, but you don't want what I have, there is no exchange. Value is subjective. Preferences need to align. You might see value in bitcoin, but your grocer doesn't. Its your job to convince them why they should accept it. Your answer needs to satisfy their want/need. Their want/need is to make profit, pay for the goods their selling and the labor cost of their employees. If you tell them that bitcoin is the greatest store of value on the planet, but they are already profitable because the owner has real estate, stock, and other assets, your store of value is of little use to them as they already have it. So you're not servicing their want or need. Simply saying "number go up" is the equivalent to selling snake oil, especially when fiat prices crash or you're in a bear market. Price isn't value. Value isn't price.

Collectable is utility.

Bitcoin was first a collectible. The first time it was used in exchange someone sent 10,000 of them for 2 pizzas because they had a surplus of them and wanted to trade them for something else of value and the other party to the transaction was happy to take 10,000 of those collectible items in exchange for 2 pizzas.

Correct. He had to trade with someone who wanted them or had similar values.

Right, and the only reason he COULD trade them was because he had amassed a sufficient number that another party took the other side of the trade and also thought holding the 10,000 Bitcoin would be worthwhile - they weren’t being traded to flip because there was no market for that. Laszlo had stored up the collectibles in surplus - notice the transaction wasn’t 1 Bitcoin, or 20,000 Sats as the case might be today.. The guy who bought the pizzas was willing to hold a large amount of what was still a collectible at the time because he thought he would be able to also trade them on future - that they would hold value over time… A store of value if you will.. Szabo is the one you need to be reading/listening to:

Fountain

Bitcoin Audible • Reboot - Shelling Out: The Origins of Money [Nick Szabo] • Listen on Fountain

"The precursors of money, along with language, enabled early modern humans to solve problems of cooperation that other animals cannot – including...

Word salad. Bitcoin is a medium of exchange because it has value first.

I agree with Szabo, but I think his word choice is poor. Collecting isn't essentially "storing value," considering person A is the only one who finds value in it. Trade requires at least two people. Person B needs to find some interest in A's asset to have value outside of their own preference. People want to say "collecting is storing value," but that's just speculation again. As I wrote earlier, if the idea is that because of bitcoins early use as a currency from 2009-2015 was enough to build trust in the asset to store value in it, makes sense and let's use THAT position, using proper phrasing, than the current narrative which is misleading and technically incorrect.

OK.

Youre using circular logic when none is required. Let me guess, you also believe in the trinity

I promote bitcoin as property with MOE capabilities to settle debt/liabilities or high value payments that require censorship resistance. Btc as UoA seems extremely unlikely in the near future.