The OP explains (hopefully) that money is a construct and system.

Until the system is complete, including the credit money layer, Bitcoin is a commodity, no more no less, and what we are doing is barter.

PS: Government or what it says does not come in. Austrian Economics demonstrates by logic that it does not need the government to make a money. Government can and will fuck up liberty money, though, if they find any angle to do so.

So, with Bitcoin, it has beed extremely hard for them so far to fuck up the base money layer. And Bitcredit Protocol hopefully is similarly good at keeping them off the credit money layer. We will see.

Q: Since when they are not? Who decided that? A: Take your pick: 1913/14 or 1933. See chart.

Q: Can Bitcoin be money? It can be. To get there, we must get the credit money layer right.

They can be. They were. They are not.

Indeed it is not. That's why the chapter is titled "A world without money".

I would like to add: a commodity is also not money.

A goat is a goat is a goat.

Same for shells, fish, grain, salt, gold, and bitcoin.

It says in the first Chapter that this is required to remove fiat, showing the Greek example. Care to read before inventing rubbish?

Kind of. Hoarding and saving should not be conflated, that's all.

My exact words. That's why the missing part is being built on Bitcoin, adhering to the relevant principles of bitcoin: decentralised, verifiable, non-custodial, censorship resistant.

When talking about the FUTURE of Bitcoin, consider it monetised. The game will have changed fundamentally.

The exchange value of Bitcoin will be naturally stable. There will be no expectation of profit by holding it outright (hoarding) beyond liquidity needs, because of opportunity cost, as it could have been saved and loaned out profitably.

"Use it as money" will mean you will keep as much liquid as you expect to use for upcoming spending.

Q: it's trying to build digital negotiable instruments using Bitcoin? A: Correct. Commercial bills (ebills) monetise 'real credit'. That's needed for goods to flow and is currently non-existent in Bitcoin, making it impossible to use for the real economy.

Q: Aren't Bitcoin negotiable instruments already perfectly doable? A: Bitcoin is a negotiable 'commodity'. A 'negotiable payment instrument' is something very different: a claim to future money (can be Bitcoin) which is freely transferrable by bearer.

Q: Is the novelty here just adapting to MLETR. A: Not a novelty, just digitalisation. Worked like a charm for centuries before fiat money. These are a 'raw material' for the production of the credit money needed for trade and industry. (See article.)

Clearer?

Q: "really make it difficult to understand with no details in public." A: These chapters are the effort to make it easy to understand. Follow and have patience, it will all be explained in time before it's switched on next year.

PS: And thanks for genuine questions, it helps the project to learn what needs explaining.

Thanks for the friendly reception.

Thanks.

"Bitcoin must circulate in order to gain power."

I literally said that above. Saving, as opposed to hoarding, allows Bitcoin to circulate, because saved Bitcoin will be invested or loaned out, put to work. Not 'sold' that's again a different thing.

We save so we can spend in the future, by unsaving. And this is all happening in retail money, not wholesale money (L1 UTXO's).

If I had to bet (I must actually) my bet is on non-custodial ecash, redeemable in bitcoin.

PS: No trolling. Considered answers or questions, please, or it's goodbye.

It says in the article: "Goats."

So, you have not even read the article? But happily trolling away. Bye.

The problem starts with your wording 'some kind of IOUs'. Imprecision is lethal in monetary economics.

On a positive note, your question shows that you are subconsciously aware that there are different kinds of IOU. Consider the specific kind of IOU for which you want to ask and you will get an answer.

Also, once you grok the difference you may not even even have to ask.

Have you even read the article? They have different functions, as described.

Hm, did not see the source, so retract that half but not the half about your abuse of it.

Giacomo groks it and you don't: https://youtu.be/1hX9Z6ClH5s?si=rtcFkpzu4ZZUNtpX

Note to self: DON'T FEED TROLLS.

We refuted those nonsense accusations right there.

And as you copied / pasted Giacomo's framework (without giving him due credit) you may want to ask him first before applying it to something which he did not intend it for. Contrary to you, he groks it.

Now they 'know' the ECB bull ... from you.