In defense of Log0s' argument, the fact that a bitcoin has no base value means that it can collapse to zero. Simply because it can collapse to zero means that people will fear that possibility and it is more likely to occur. Gold is a great example. The price of gold is above $1600 this week. We can never guess the 'true' value of gold, but I imagine a huge number of people would buy an ounce above $50 even if they believed no one else in the world would exchange them. When the price of gold dramatically tanked from $1950 to $1550 many people panic sold, but absolutely no one feared that the price would fall to zero. Bitcoin on the other hand is much more susceptible to panic sells. Even if we imagine a higher volume and lower volatility, a crash has no theoretic bottom and that fact alone will lead to more dramatic crashes.

Indirect exchange is only one of multiple reasons people buy gold.  There are many directly serviceable uses of gold and at least one of those reasons (ornamentation) were why people wanted to acquire gold before it was ever used for indirect exchange. 

And since a bitcoin is not a directly serviceable good, that is the *only* reason to buy bitcoins.  It's commonly known as the "greater fool theory": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory

Isn't it nice to know that the entire "bitcoin economy" is based on everyone expecting to find a greater fool to buy their bitcoins?

You challenged my alleged belief that money can emerge only in one way.  So I provided you links to material that explains how money naturally emerges, and then I provided some simple explanations as to a couple of ways you could theoretically create an artificially determined money using the knowledge of how money emerges naturally, one way being through propaganda, and the other through impractical direct physical manipulation of the brains that you want to value your artificial money.

Knowledge of how money emerges is extremely important if you want people to adopt a specific money.  Having that knowledge helps you not waste your time on certain things, or make stupid mistakes.  And I have a hard time imagining someone that understands how money emerges would say that how it emerges doesn't matter that much when talking about the adoption of a supposed money, so the simplest explanation was that you lack some understanding of the topic.

It's obvious to me that you do not have an adequate understanding of how money emerges.

This book, especially Chapters 1-3, will be a good start: http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp

If you really want dig deeper, you can read this book: http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=3250&html=1

Money can only emerge in an economy if it is first a directly serviceable good.  If something provides no direct service to anyone (meaning it does not provide a direct means to anyone's desired ends, and is therefore not valued by anyone), why would anyone buy it?

Dollars, like all other fiat money, originated as a commodity backed currency, either with direct backing of a commodity, or indirect backing of a commodity by being backed by another currency that originated as a commodity backed currency.  Bitcoin is not a commodity in itself (only directly serviceable goods can become a commodity), and has no direct or indirect commodity backing it.

The Bitcoin system, which is a very ingenious system, has the potential to provide a direct service, but does a bitcoin itself provide a direct service to people?  The only direct service the Bitcoin system that one could argue it currently provides is to "send" bitcoins to others.  But if a bitcoin does not provide a direct service, why are people willing to exchange goods for them?  I believe there is among Bitcoin users a widespread misunderstanding of Bitcoin, and after so much discussion on this thread, a misunderstanding of the concept of money itself.  This calls into question the value of the Bitcoin system since it's only direct service is to allow people to "send" an alleged good which provides no direct service.

I could create a ledger with some paper and a pencil, calling the numbers in the ledger "nums", and after someone fulfills some requirement I can write +50 "nums" to their account.  Then, for example, they can then have me write -25 "nums" to their account and +25 "nums" to someone else's account.  But what direct service do "nums" provide?  Why would anyone want to pay a cost (whether it's meeting some arbitrary requirement or offering a good) to acquire any "nums"?  The only difference between "nums" and bitcoins (and this difference is actually irrelevant) is one of who or what is trusted.  Even assuming you had full trust in me and my ability to keep the ledger accurate and secure, "nums" still provide no direct service to anyone.  My ledger service has the potential to provide a direct service, but the "nums" it keeps account of do not provide any direct service, so would my ledger service actually be providing a direct service to people by keeping account of "nums"?  I don't think so.

The more bitcoins people own the more likely they are to tell others and the more likely that person investigates bitcoin. (up to a certain point)
This effect is stronger so there is a reason for it to lag behind.

the 30 day graph is updated every day, 4 lines/weeks and 7 notches

Alas they are really hidden long-term bulls.

Yes, the market has already priced in the daily cash influx.  That is what I'm getting at.  The market is assuming that there will be enough investors to buy all remaining coins at current prices.  When the price drops, it's because the market doesn't believe 21 million coins are worth the current price.

It remains at above $4 but looks to be quite bearish, anymore hacking or unpleasant news will see it dive even more.

No, I'm not. Whatever I put into it over the course of the Summer I'm still holding on to, and have no plans to get rid of (even if I overpaid)