I have not conflated these things.

Yes, of course there has been and is ‘commodity money’. But all you are doing when using it is swapping one commodity for another. It is barter. As such, it suffers from the problems of hoarding (when the perceived value of the commodity is rising) and can leave people short changed (when the perceived value is falling).

My concern is that we develop a new form of money that is immune to the failings of commodity money, the current system and crypto-currencies that attempt to mimic commodity money.

If you say Bitcoin is a ‘store of value’, what value is it storing?

Why should its value grow? If it is because more people want it, why do they want it? If it is because they think even more people will want it, you are into the old ‘tulip frenzy’, which inevitably collapses when the spiral stops. The increase in value has no substance.

If more people want it to represent the value of transactions, what does Bitcoin offer compared to an electronic money token that has no value, but which faithfully records the value of each transaction?

If you need more tokens because there are more transactions, then why not issue more with the same face value as those already in existence?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.