> The fact that they changed the currency even made poor people who had savings in cash (awful idea!), poorer when they forgot to exchange it.
Given the inflation rate of almost 2000% in 1993 and 1994, if poor people had savings in cash they would very quickly have been worth nothing anyway. (I was a kid in Peru in the 80s-90s when they also had hyperinflation and 3 different currencies.)
Reading your article, while I agree with you on the absurdity of Bitcoin...
> that day when you wanted to eat lentils, you had to go through the trouble of exchanging potatoes for beans, then beans for rice, then rice for lentils.
Potatoes came over from the New World and weren't commonly eaten in Europe until the late 1500s. Lentils are likely from Mesopotamia. Rice wasn't common in Europe until sometime after the 10th century.
> Metals, even more so scarce ones, such as silver and gold, quickly emerge in your community as an answer to this demand.
No they don't. Metals at first only were used for long-distance trading, ie luxury goods, and it's not until the rise of states that metal currency becomes a common thing (required for taxation and military), and it was devalued constantly at the whim of the rulers anyway.
> the United States, the Gold Reserve Act forbid the Treasury and financial institutions from redeeming dollar bills for gold in 1934. It was the last remaining nation with a national currency to uphold the gold standard and one of the fundamental reasons, along with free trade, that made the nation prospered so much – not wars!
Huh? You have this precisely backwards. The fundamental reason the US prospered so much was that it was continually expanding its borders much later than other countries (through war!), right up until the 1900s. (See also: every empire in history prospers while it's growing.) The US also had high tariffs for a long time, and it wasn't until the period of the late 1930s and early 1940s when they actually started signing free trade agreements.
> The Keynesian party of state-issued inflationary currency might be over within the following decades. If I had to make a bet, I’d say stock from publically traded companies might be the base asset for the upcoming currencies.
Publicly traded companies... in which country exactly? The USD has its power and stability because it has the US economy and military behind it.
This is my fundamental disagreement with libertarianism: your statement "I want the free market to thrive and the state entirely out of everyone's lives" is a complete paradox. The "free market" is a creation wholly enforced through the power of the state (and ironically always requires a lot of regulation to stay that way). I will gladly change my mind if you can give me an example of where this is not true.