I am trying to clear up some confusion but I'm afraid I created more. I have another post in this same thread I wrote on the same day as the one you responded to. I hope that one helps.

If not, I'll try again.

I think if you start with Bitcoin and ask yourself if it's a medium of exchange versus store of value, you're already on the wrong track. I would rather you ask what the replacement money for the dollar is going to be. Ask if Bitcoin can replace the dollar (and Euro, and Yuan, etc.) and if not figure out why not. When I say "money" I mean what Mises meant, namely the most commonly used medium of exchange. I already tried to explain the fallacy of "medium of exchange" versus "store of value." Again, if something is a medium of exchange it must necessarily be a store of value, otherwise the second exchange will be a disappointment.

When I try to use Bitcoin as a medium of exchange (not as a stock) in hopes that someday it can become money, sometimes it is a breeze and sometimes it is full of friction. Bitcoin is far from money at this time. One time when I tried to pay my server bill, I saw that transaction fees were much more than 3% of the amount I wanted to spend, and that on top of the vendor's processor fees. The fees were so high because some numbskulls wanted to save cartoons into the Bitcoin blockchain. Thankfully it was not a coffee, it was a utility bill, so I waited a few days, fees came down, and I paid my bill then. Other times I tried to buy things sellers added a fee much higher than 3% of the thing I was buying. I keep referencing 3% based on approximate credit card fees. Another time I tried to buy something they wanted personal information akin to a job application. Then I have to pay taxes on top of all that, too, as though it were some kind of real estate transaction. Getting back to the point, every now and then I see some comment about transaction fees being higher as good for Bitcoin. High fees being good for bitcoin is an argument against Bitcoin becoming money and I think those mental gymnastics are mistaken. Folks might also add the "store of value" to that argument. These arguments are treating Bitcoin like a stock or real estate holding rather than like a money. I think you should be free to participate in Ponzi schemes if you want, but I would rather Bitcoin become money someday, along with gold or silver, which are also assets that people are treating like stocks that instead should become money.

Does that make sense? I'm frustrated by people moving the goalposts away from Bitcoin as money. I think you should be able to buy a coffee with Bitcoin. If you cannot, for any reason, then something has gone wrong, someone is getting in the way, or technical problems need to be acknowledged and resolved. 

 Not a failure, sub-optimal, yes. Custodial solutions will survive idealistic radicals as sub-optimal solutions, unfortunately 

 If peer-to-peer cash (Bitcoin) solves the problem of institutional gatekeepers of money, then when Bitcoin is exclusively a medium of exchange for institutional settlements it has failed. 

 Maybe. We could distinguish adoption as a stock to be exchanged later for money versus adoption as a money to be exchanged later for goods or services. Whether my second exchange for goods or services takes place 20 years from now or 20 minutes from now I can use Bitcoin as a medium of exchange. My intent to exchange it for another money versus intent to exchange it for goods and services shapes my perspective. Emphasis on "SoV" is the former and emphasis on "MoE" is the latter. Emphasis on "MoE" necessarily includes "store of value" but the reverse is not always true.