Intrinsic value of bitcoin: do you agree with my explanation?

[guybrushthreepwood]

Gold has intrinsic value because it's a usable metal.

Bitcoin has intrinsic value because it's a usable product of hash computation. What's your point? Can you wear bitcoin on your neck? No. Can you send gold over internet? No. Which one is actually more useful? For me it's clear.

It doesn't exist in the real physical world. It has value, but not intrinsic value. See this:

Something has intrinsic value when it has value by itself.

Gold has intrinsic value, because it can be used as a component in electroncics, because it is beautiful and because you know others would want to buy it, it has a long history of acceptance.

By that definition, bitcoins have no intrinsic value. One BTC by itself is useless. What bitcoins do have is intrinsic utility similar to cell phones. One cellphone is useless, give a billion people a cellphone and a network and it becomes very - very useful.

In that situation, if intrinsic value is determined in (great) part by intrinsic utility, the intrinsic value will only go up for bitcoins.

These are all completely made-up fictitious internet terms and concepts.

People keep trying to tell me Bitcoin is a 'completely made-up fictitious internet term and concept' too.

[piramida]

Bitcoins do exist in the real physical world. They are stored in excited electrons of various atoms all over our planet, in the blockchain copies. You can even get inside an ssd with an atomic microscope and see for yourself. This is not much different from your regular gold atoms, yes you can't wear them on your neck, but they very much exist.

In fact, every atom, including gold, is just some energy spike in a vacuum. From that point of view, bitcoin is much more real than a bar of gold - that one exists in one place only.

True, gold has history with humans, that is undeniable. But bitcoin has future