The story of the intrinsic value is the greatest BS ever. Repeating spreading BS doesn' make it better.

This is false. The dollar is only successful because the US government forces it upon its citizens. Otherwise we would not accept nothing (paper) for something (goods).

You're talking about "currency" here, which can be a very distinct definition from "money". Bitcoin is money - unlevered "base" money in the sense that it isn't backed by anything (which is what gives it it's value, same as gold). Currency is something which proxies for money and is traded on a day to day basis for goods and services.

That fact tends to put some people in a state of cognitive dissonance which is why they start threads like this on discussion forums. (The words "horse" and "stable door" spring to mind).

Bitcoin's future does not revolve around being accepted at retail outlets any more than Gold's does.

Maybe you should go and trade some Bitcoin on the open exchange markets for a while - you'll soon find out it has value !

porc do you have anything positive to say about bitcoin?

porc -

Your appraisal of Bitcoin from the outset is flawed.

1) You've based your conclusions on the wrong observations - observations which are incidental to the fundamental nature of "money" and not central to it.

Cryptocurrencies are a *token*. A token of value. Their utility value to the economy is in functioning as a form of money. They have no other utility value. Conversely, there is no other technology available to man which can fulfil this function in an electronic trading environment. For this reason alone they have value.

The fact that they are not spendable in Tescos or Wallmart is incidental to this. I can't spend a lump of Gold either.

Lets now look at the non-electronic environment and see how it compares.

2) In the "physical" world, Gold is basically a physical Bitcoin. Its primary use is a "token" or "placeholder" for value. It has very little utility value other than this function - to operate as a peer to peer form of money that does not require a counterparty - i.e. the physical equivalent of a "Bitcoin". It is not backed by anything, has few industrial uses to speak of, but has certain properties (basically scarecity and resistence to counterfeiting) which allow it to function as money.

3) Since it is not backed by anything, we say it has "intrinsic value" - or put another way, it represents the last element in a call chain of trust.

4) In an electronic trading environment such as the internet, there is a need for a transmittable entity which can perform the function of money that gold did in the physical. Banks do not actually transmit "money" - they just increase a number in one account and decrease it in another. There's no sense in which anything is actually "transmitted" in this process and since the whole operation is so arbitrary it requires a huge amount of counterparty involvement to give "value" to those arbitrary numbers.

Bitcoin on the other hand is the genuine article - it is a uniquely identifiable electronic entity which is transmittable through the public network without the need for a counterparty.

If you don't appreciate the collosal implications of this for money, the banking system and the economy in general, then fair enough. Nobody realised that travel agents were dead in the water the day the World Wide Web was invented either. But those implications are academic - not a question of subjective value, market value, popularity or whether you can "spend" them or not.

What can you do with Bitcoin? 1) Conduct trade with others 2) and/or hold onto them as a store of value. What is Bitcoin's value? 3) The value is determined by market demand.

4) There will only ever be 21,000,000 Bitcoins, so their value can never be diminished by inflation of the supply. 5) Trade conducted exclusively in Bitcoin isn't subjected to taxes. What is it worth to have a medium of exchange that can't be devalued and that some 3rd party doesn't feel entitled to help themselves to whatever share of that they want? 6) The day is coming when it's going to take a LOT of government fiat to convince anyone to part with their BTC.

Read before you write! I am talking about dollars which are nothing and how they become something (by government force). Now gold is something because it looks pretty. Why is bitcoin something?

You are correct: I dont need force to agree that something is worth something. But I do need to be forced by government to agree to nothing (dollar) is worth something (goods). Get it? How is the bitcoin community going to convince me that nothing (bitcoin) is worth something??

Yes, but as a bear since months you unfortunately could not participate in the main part of this super bubble.
Masterluc had a good call again now. But I would still bet 1 coin against his prediction that the recent top won't be topped before 2016/2017. I predict a new high 2014 and bet 1 coin.

Ah, of course thanks Satoshi and community, but I am still here =) Next entering point for me is in 2016-2017 year.

Another argument to call it bullshit. As two weeks ago he was calling this wave 3 of EWT.

He just thinks this is the top of current rally/bubble and want people to follow him counting on some of his earlier good calls so he could reload cheaper

He, of course might be right about the bubble, there is lot of people thinking the same and he made enough good calls so far, but only idiot could call this end of 3 years bullish trend, lol and say I'm out until 2016. If someone said that in April there might be lot of people who would buy it but now, when things around Bitcoin are happening as a storm, it's laughable.

The origin of money is debt. The origin of debt is collectivism. The origin of collectivism is organized violence. The origin of organized violence is disease.
Otherwise, stateless and self-sufficient communities in the rain forest would have money and markets as well. But they don't. They don't need it, because they are not taxed (indebted) by the state mafia. It's that simple.

"Here is the central fact of money. Money is the product of the market process. It arises out of an unplanned, decentralized process. This takes time. It takes a lot of time."

Thats both the dollar and Bitcoin ruled out.

The historic norm is a non-collectivist, self-sufficient life where the only thing that has any intrinsic value was drinking water, shelter, food and hunting tools. That's still the situation in territories, where the state is absent.

All other things later got their value by collectivism (labor division) beyond Dunbars Numbers. Your arguments are the arguments of a collectivist.

Since when do gold, silver jewels etc have any intrinsic value?

The only thing that has any intrinsic value to me is drinking water, shelter, food and bullets.

If the belief that women are as capable of rational behaviour as men is your definition of socialism, you have every reason to apologise for not being a socialist.