There it is, the intrinsic value is scarcity argument (yes, an item is incredibly scarce when it is divisible down to eight decimal places and has 2.1 quadrillion individual units, there's only 37.2 trillion cells in the human body). Either it's large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable. We need to pick one and stick with it because it can't be both
There is no real contradiction
First, scarcity is required but not sufficient. I remember I had explained that already, kinda seems about time to repeat the lesson. To be valuable, something should not only be scarce but also useful at that. If some shit is infinitely scarce but utterly useless, it won't have any value. Second, scarcity is not an absolute category (like yes or no questions), something can be more scarce than something else and vice versa. And last but not least, being infinitely divisible doesn't mean that you will have more of it. In this way, it doesn't matter if you divide one Bitcoin into 100 or 100,000 parts, you will still have only 1 Bitcoin in total. That's exactly where your logic fails
Your logic fails when you take a world with an M1 money supply of 3340.50 Billion US Dollars alone and try to run a world with only 21 million bitcoins. I agree that if you don't want to make Bitcoin a national currency then bitcoins are scarce.
What do 3340.50 billions of US Dollars have to do with 21 millions of bitcoins, and how is it related to the issue in question? Scarcity is not binary (either 1 or 0), and as I already said in my other post here, more goods will render the same amount of bitcoins more scarce, consequently, less goods less scarce...
In other words, more bitcoins will be chasing less goods (i.e. Bitcoin less scarce) and vice versa (i.e. Bitcoin more scarce)
At one time there was a $100,000 bill that featured a portrait of Woodrow Wilson on it. It was used mainly by banks to transfer large amounts of currency around before the advent of the ACH/EFT system. President Richard Nixon eliminated their use by executive order in 1969. If you are talking one Bitcoin being equal to one $100,000 dollar note then you're getting closer to the truth. However, to equal the dollars in circulation then one Bitcoin needs to be a decimal percentage of what we now call bitcoins of which there are plenty. 2.1 quadrillion of them in fact. That's not really what I would call scarce. In the "one world currency" realm of the future, none of us will ever walk around with one Bitcoin or one $100,000 bill in our pocket.
Scarcity should not be considered in isolation, it should always be related to something in respect to which it is scarce since otherwise it simply doesn't make sense. Is one bitcoin scarce or not? In your case, the amount of bitcoins should be linked to the amount of goods directly, not dollars. Dollars themselves are irrelevant to this question...
Even if it is one hundred thousand dollars in gold
And then you can say exactly in which case Bitcoin will be more scarce and in which less
I think you're lost in semantics. It's either it's day or it's night, it can't be both. The sponge is either wet or it's dry, it can't be both. Either Bitcoin is large enough to be the one world currency for every country or it's intrinsically so scarce that it's super valuable, it can't be both.
