I just want to remind to anybody who is taking the time to carefully present arguments in this thread, that even if porc is not listening to you, you are not wasting your time, since other people like me are interested in these arguments. This thread provided me with good insights about the viability of bitcoin, and as a result I'm more convinced than ever of its great future.

Saying that people have some personal subjective valuation of the security in BTC is a meaningless statement, it can not be quantified into value per unit of BTC.  Security is best expressed in a degree of confidence, the percentage probability that I will successfully retain ownership in the face of the random theft/loss chance, over a period of time.  I am equally secure regardless of how many BTC I own so why is a larger quantity worth more then a smaller quantity?  Lets suppose my confidence level is 99% per year, how do I turn that number ALONE into a valuation?  I would need to multiply it by a value derived from backing and take into account the risks that are inherent in any backing.  The only thing BTC enthusiasts can point to to back the UNIT of BTC having value is the ability to sell them to the greater fool in the future, aka they are not backed.

Yes all value is subjective including that of gold, even the many industrial uses that we now have for gold ultimately fulfill desires that are subjective (like having a cell-phone).  Heck even FOOD can be considered to have subjective value, we might all desire to be Anorexic Yogi ascetic tomorrow and the value of food would plummet though probably not to zero unless everyone were really planning to starve to death.

But security and backing are still two different things.  Security is a guarantee of ownership, backing is a guarantee of value.  In the case of a commodity backed currency the guarantee rests upon the value of another commodity, it won't ever be less valuable then a set quantity of said commodity, but obviously the underlying commodity could still collapse.  Also states can enforce legal-tender laws and accept only their currency in payment of taxes, this is a very strong backing if the state is strong but it is still dependent on something that can ultimately fail just like a commodity.  Perfect backing is an impossibility, as is perfect security, but it's wrong to confuse of substitute them.

Because I was saying then that there is no specific requirement for a store of value in regards to purchasing power other than it cannot quickly become worthless. Obviously a store has to be at least one of the three, it certainly does not have to increase in value. And stability and near term are rather subjective terms.

Gold-backed currency was used to back Lincoln into a corner where his only option was to devise a new currency to fund the war. This, of course, significantly reduced the value of gold-backed currency (but it did not eliminate it as a store of value, it just became a quickly depreciated one that was far from worthless), but we're getting fairly tangential to the topic.

You are making the presumption (in the first sentence) that a store of value has to have some fixed quantity which is not true of any store of value in the history of ever, including bitcoin when considering its derivatives.

Is all that is required. "Store of value" does not imply in perpetuity. Virtually every definition of store of value considers fiat currencies of stable governments stores of value even though they lose value over time. They are still predictable stores of value. I do not believe you are a bitcoin homer, so I really hope you don't have to resort to bitcoinomics here to explain that the modern economic definition is wrong.

By what nonsense would it have to gain through time?

I disagree with you here. A store of value does not have to gain, lose, or remain stable in purchasing power to be a store of value, it just has to not become (mostly) worthless on short timescales. At least in the traditional way of thinking. Of course bitcoinomics would probably describe the perfect store of value as a pyramid scheme.

I was referring specifically to it being gold 2.0. Bitcoin is easily copied and there is copious evidence to this, and those copies have quite handily stolen some percentage of marketshare from bitcoin. This is not analogous to gold vs other precious metals as there is essentially no cost to bootstrapping these new currencies. The store of value property can only hold for as long as people are willing to transact in the currency and pay what will be exorbitant tx fees (comparatively) to support mining. This is a serious conflict.

bitcoin is a shining thing.
Let's try to understand  why people like shining objects. I think is radically a form of comunication: jewels like wampum shells, are worn so you can see it from far. If you have a commodity which is visible from far an so is possible to desire it for somebody who looks, you'are just advertising for it. Maybe your advertising works becaus you are a powerful, violent king, but maybe advertising needs no testimonial. If you adveritse for a commlodity, this commodity gets  medium of exchange value. Bitcoin is an internet based viral advertising campaign for a commodity, so it's a very shining, visible from far object. That's why (given the two other proprieties of rareness and indestructibility ) it's a good store of value.

Other obvious anwser (you have same problem with cash, but in that instance I can kick his leg, knock him down, beat the shit out of him and get my cash back along with the tickets for trying to jack me; that doesnt work if i dont know his password on his phone after I get it back from him)

I really don't see how. Bitcoin has zero advantage as a store of value over any clone, and if they're all terrible media of exchange, limited supply, independence, etc. don't really mean much. And when coins start arriving that don't rely on proof of work for security, bitcoin will be far more costly to transact with, leaving it only valuable in the eyes of the bagholders hanging on desperately to their "network effect".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_as_an_investment

I think this explains the value that gold has above it's intrinsic worth.

Hi from the other thread

I think you were basically implying that Bitcoin potentially can store value even if it mostly fails as a medium of exchange. Is that correct?

No. I have recently but some thought into what bitcoin is and if I want to buy it. I shared my conclusions with this board. Apparently having anything but a bullish opinion on bitcoin is trolling. So be it.

No I am interested in the discussion just thinking perhaps we should move into another thread.

Your example is very interesting. It does not at all sit comfortably that this can be applied to a cryptocurrency but I don't have a real rebuttal and I'd like to think more about it.

If I would be convinced of the idea behind bitcoin, I would have transferred some of my wealth to it. The fact is, that I am not convinced. Now you can pretend like, the only reason I am not convinced, is because I am angry. Quite the opposite. I looked at it totally unemotionally with the question if I need to buy some, if it is a viable alternative. My conclusion is just different from yours. I dont feel threatend if you dont like my silver.