Ah, Ah !
I think I just had my “Eureka moment” as you sometimes call it.
It’s been a while that I have been reading your articles. The sharpness and the clarity of your thoughts and the way you express them had struck me at first. Then I began reading the references you sometimes give. I’ve been through a few Rothbard’s books, and I appreciate it.
But I felt I was missing something.
I couldn’t understand why you repeatedly stated that Bitcoin wasn’t money, while to some extent you kept presenting it as a “medium of exchange” in Rothbard’s definition of it. I couldn’t figure if it was a slight confusion, or if it was deliberate.
And now I think I get it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what you’re saying is that Bitcoin is not money in his profound nature. It’s something. It’s a protocol, it’s a mathematic solution. Similarly as nickel, for instance, is not originally money, it’s nickel. What you’re trying to say is that Bitcoin is only what it is, with it’s own properties, and that it’s up to us to “consider it” as money, and thus it will become money. You’re using this subtle epistemological path to avoid the problem of any regulation of Bitcoin by the States. Because, if I get it correctly, what is happening here is that humanity has discovered a new ressource (sentence that could be transformed in a lot of possible ways, like : someone has discovered a mathematical solution to a problem that could benefit everyone, etc.) that doesn’t belong to anyone, and the governments, which are finally individuals, with their own interests, their own beliefs, their own particular will, are trying to put their hand on it while saying “that’s the way this new ressource should be used”. But why ? With what right ? This new ressource doesn’t belong to anyone. Only those who use it. That’s it.
I hope I didn’t denature your thoughts. Anyway, thank’s for sharing them.