Do we see the difference in the way the question is being framed?

Money is a technology that did not arise from fore thought but rather through natural evolution. This technology arose to address a special problem that society poses. Those that are trying to design an ideal currency like the Keynesians through policy, or the Ver-sians, the Gavins, the Hearnsians etc. are not providing solutions to a problem that exists.

The phenomenon of “Satoshi” has caused the general bitcoin community to approach the problem of society and the technology of money from a perspective that is insane by the definition of repeatedly using the same method to achieve something that cannot be achieved with that method.

Our society is not (should not be!) looking for the blueprints of the ideal currency. If one understands the nature and purpose of money one has learned such an endeavor is logically absurd.

However, what WOULD be useful for our society, especially in regard to the optimal distribution of commodities (alleviating scarcity and ending conflict), would be to somehow have possession of an objective unit of value, such that all things could be compared to and measured against.

Money has historically served this purpose, to the best that it could, and in various ways, however, always the money systems get corrupted from pressures that evolve and attack the stability of the value of the units.

Those that are trying to evolve bitcoin to be a money free from such corruption, are the very “evil doers” themselves. They are the very trouble they are claiming to dispel.

Bitcoin CANNOT be Ideal Money.

Do NOT ask, “How can bitcoin be arranged to be Ideal Money?”

Instead ask, “CAN bitcoin be arranged to inspire Ideal Money?”