I'm not defining value in the philosophical sense, which as you point out is entirely subjective, but you seem to be arguing against the generally accepted definition of value as applied to a system where something is exchanged in return for something else.

> But there are many other circumstances that could result in BTC having no value, regardless of scarcity. For instance if people stopped using it, at all. There would be no value in being the only one with bitcoin, regardless of how scarce they are.

Perhaps you need to re-read my comment. I never said scarcity alone was enough - if no one used it, it wouldn't have utility. You need both, hence my use of the word 'and'.

And thanks for the completely unnecessary downvote.