Though this is a very good presentation to the Austrian that believes in the story that money emerged from gold, it continues to build bitcoin's justification on this weak foundation. Yes, we all have been taught that money emerged from trial and error by using a commodity as a medium of exchange, however this is not how money is actually used and the commodity element is not even necessary for it to function as money. This is evidenced by fiat having survived been disconnected from its redeemability by the issuer for the initially promised commodity. If anyone wishes to civilly engage with me on this I'm more than willing to explain why I believe this is true. The true superiority of bitcoin as a money is actually in its rarity, security and transferability. There are obviously others, but for brevity I'm limiting the list.

It is guaranteed to be rare, and therefore far superior to gold. There's no possibility for someone to find large deposits of bitcoin on an asteroid.

It is guaranteed to be secure, though not private, there are many ways to guarantee that it can't be stolen from you by a thief or a government without extracting information from you.

It is vastly more transferable than gold or even fiat because it doesn't require a trusted third party to transport and doesn't require a network of agreements between trusted agents to settle balance transfers. It can be transferred across the world in the blink of an eye and for almost no cost, and the recipient has absolute "physical" possession of it.

I agree the closest thing to bitcoin that we have ever used as money is gold, but to build an argument on the reasons gold became money is to weaken people's understanding of bitcoin primary strengths.

The video he mentions that inspired this one is very very good and worth a watch: