That's because your question is not meaningful. You haven't found some great way to catch people out, you've just found the limits of your understanding. That's great, it's a chance to understand where the problem with the posed dichotomy lies.
The reason I'm here is to discuss issues, which means more than single word answers. I'd love for you to respond in a way that actually challenged what I'm saying, or questioned it more deeply or whatever. I'm not here to win; I'm here to learn.
Whether or not crypto can be used to pay taxes is irrelevant to whether or not it holds the value to be taxed itself. But you’re demanding that I address an argument you made in an attempt to evade an argument I made. You’re now trying to have it both ways in more than one way. My question has a yes or no answer, you can either give me a yes or no or I’ll answer for you. I’m not interested in letting you continue to run from your obvious lack of consistency while asking me to let you try everything and see what sticks.
I'm not aware you've made an argument and I'm not demanding anything of you (beyond an implicit request to discuss in good faith). I'm not sure what I'm not being consistent about. I suspect you're assuming quite a bit about what my views are.
I addressed the specific point you made in your first sentence already in the thread. It having value is irrelevant to whether or not it can or should be taxed, but it being taxed is sufficient to give it value.
I already told you. Either it has value or it does not. “Depends on when” is not addressing it. If you don’t want me to assume your views, the state them directly, it takes a single word.
It’s relevant unless you plan on taxing things with no value.
Context is everything: Does a bar of gold have value? What about if you're alone on a desert island and dying of thirst? What's the value of a glass of water?
How about a £10 note? Does that have value? Does it depend on whether you're in the UK? Does it's value change depending on the availability of a money changer?
You absolutely can tax things with no value and poof, they suddenly have value. Everyone can now attach a real value to that thing dependent on how it will allow them to satisfy their tax obligations. Indeed, fiat currency has value precisely because of the tax obligations it can be used to satisfy.
No, your views on tax obligations are irrelevant to the discussion. If I have no tax obligations and I hold cryptocurrency, would you force me to pay taxes? If you plan to tax me on the value of the cryptocurrency itself, then you’re back to being forced to admit it had value in the first place. Tax obligations are an irrelevant facade you’re hiding the same circular argument behind.
You say context is everything and yet refuse to share the contexts you believe cryptocurrency has value. You lack confidence in your own consistency.
The reason I'm here is to discuss issues, which means more than single word answers. I'd love for you to respond in a way that actually challenged what I'm saying, or questioned it more deeply or whatever. I'm not here to win; I'm here to learn.