Bitcoins *prove* Mengerian account of money creation?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Smiling Dave,

I just want to point out I have not forgotten where we left off:

Don't buy Bitcoins (video)

My latest video: Don’t Buy Bitcoins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoK8HXMSsNg I’m posting this as a seperate thread because I don’t think that many people are still following the other super-long bitcoin thread. See also the last 5 minutes (the Q&A) of: The Economics of Legal Tender Laws (by Jorg Guido Hulsmann) http://mises.org/media/1521 .

The discussion here is about those questions. Mises claims to have deduced from self evident axioms and impeccable logical deduction that people will only believe a thing to be money [other than a few fools here and there, who will believe anything] if it has direct use. I invite you to summarize his line of reasoning and show where it is flawed.

1. You keep wanting to bring the conversation back to the same issue. I fail to understand your point. I elaborated in my own words leveraging Rothbard. I described Bitcoin as a “intermediary indirect medium of exchange.” What is there to further disucss about direct use? Is there something in dispute on whether Bitcoin fits an Austrian definition of money?

2. I suggested an “intermediary indirect medium of exchange” is a coerced market phenomenon and suggested you should yield to it. I can’t recall your exact response and I don’t feel like scrolling up but you did object to yielding to coerced market phenomenon’s.

3. I asserted whether or not bitcoin is money, is irrelevant to the usefullness of Bitcoin. This is because individuals are forced to pay taxes in private credit and the state is over taxing or over regulating goods. Bitcoin has a distinct usefullness in a coerced market of fiat money.

If you can acknowledge Bitcoin has some usefullness in a coerced market I can exit the conversation in agreement. If you are unable to make an acknowledgement I am going to continue to insist on an explanation other than constantly bringing up a well settled point of what is the Austrian definition of money….

Live free:

We can exit the conversation because I fail to get what you are talking about. Whether this because I’m missing something or because your message is flawed, I just don’t get it. In either case, I see no point in continuing. Good luck to you.

I still object to condeming coerced market phenomenons that do not benefit State, Inc. on the basis they do not fit an Austrian definition of money in a free market when there is presently no free market.