-nesting limit-

You mine for it, but that doesn't mean it relies on the idea that value spent is value stored. That doesn't follow.

You said that you spend energy to store energy, you spend energy to mine for gold, you have energy stored in the gold you mined. You spend value to mine for gold in return you have value in gold.

Precious metals have value because people see them as valuable, and it's the same with Bitcoin.

Precious metals have value because they are scarce, is what you are saying. Same with Bitcoin.

I'm willing to consider what you're saying, but I find it very difficult to imagine what you're describing.

The definition you have of money is a fallacy: money is a measure of value, therefore it cannot have value itself, yet you attribute value to money itself because it's not money anymore, it is a commodity or a scarce resource.

A good currency should have stability, yes, and bitcoin has gained more stability over time. However, it would be very difficult for a currency to retain exactly the same amount of value, with one pound always and everywhere buying 10 loaves of bread, ten pounds always buying a ladder or something like that. Is that the kind of thing you're describing, or have I misunderstood.

A currency period is a measure of value, otherwise it is a commodity.
A measure of value will measure the same amount of value time and time again, everywhere, if it is indeed a measure and not a store/medium of value.

I have no problem with currency being both a measure of value and a store of value, though obviously it's an imperfect measure of value because of the factors I've mentioned.

Either you are measuring value or are storing it, obviously you agree on some level that you cannot both measure a mile and store a mile.

I'd say all forms of money are commodities in some sense.

To put it correctly: "I'd say all forms of money are commodities and not a measure of value."