I agree you have addressed some of the issues and I may have missed some and more responded to the name calling as tends to happen when name calling starts and reasoned dialogue suffers as a result.

It is probably more a question of emphasis that is the issue for me.

I prefer to emphasize the risk involved in the 'bitcoin as digital gold' narrative- the risk that people do not see where the real power and importance of Bitcoin is- as an alternative to the nation states monopoly over money and our MoE.

I believe that is a real risk- as I acknowledged at the start- sure you can say Bitcoin is digital gold and that is not untrue- but what I want to emphasize is that the digital gold narrative plays into a perception of Bitcoin that enables capture by bankers and governments by reducing the awareness and emphasis on P2P payments.

P2P payments is where we are going to have to fight to gain the right to use Bitcoin.

It is already quasi banned in most 'liberal' western democracies - How many p2p LN payments do I make that are legally compliant? Almost NONE -certainly not when I zap or by a coffee or kebab at a LN accepting merchant (which I do often as I can!) - because the law is such a fucking ass and requires unreasonable and extraordinary recording and reporting obligations. Most people however are not wanting to expose themselves to such risk. They do not see the right to use Bitcoin as a MoE as such an important issue. They blindly accept the state banker monopoly over MoE. I do not take law breaking lightly either- it is only where the law is obviously and extremely unjust that I believe it is sometimes justified.

How do we remove such unreasonable and undue obligations that have been imposed on all Bitcoiners wishing to use Bitcoin as a MoE?

Not by ignoring the problem.