On Bitcoin as money

[squatter]

I've seen people say that intrinsic value is a requirement for money, but I think they're wrong. It seems that the only true requirement for money is that it's scarce. Without a sense of scarcity, all value becomes arbitrary. Past that, all that's really required is a general consensus among people to use something as money

Transactional utility is intrinsic value of money

At least, as long as we accept there is intrinsic value in things in the first place as all value is subjective, and marginally subjective at that.

It's not intrinsic, though. If nobody used Bitcoin, it would have no utility with regard to transactions. It would have no utility at all. So, it obviously has no intrinsic value, as Satoshi correctly pointed out. I just think this has no bearing on whether it can be "money."

Note that I didn't say that it is intrinsic value of Bitcoin

I said that it is intrinsic value of money. See the difference? If nobody uses Bitcoin, then I agree, it won't have transactional utility. But it will also mean that it stops being money, right?

That's the point. Money doesn't indicate any intrinsic value at all, whether we're talking about Bitcoin or dollar bills or cowry shells. Something is money only by virtue of the fact that people collectively imbue it with market value.

Transactional utility is what makes money money. You can look at it from a different angle, actually, from the other end even. If something has transactional utility, it is money as this is what essentially defines money

Sure. It's just not intrinsic. Intrinsic value regards nature -- innate characteristics, i.e. the elemental uses of gold in industry or the consumptive value of cocoa beans.

Money, as a medium of exchange, requires people to imbue it with value, by definition. That can't be intrinsic because it doesn't exist in nature.

For example, gold is a good store of value, but it makes a bad money because it is not very convenient to transact with it as its transactional utility is not great. In fact, it is quite poor in comparison with other forms of modern money like fiat or Bitcoin itself

Why is gold a good store of value? Isn't this directly tied to its value as money?

As far as being a medium of exchange, convertible gold-based notes worked just as well as fiat money. Gold-based money has a much longer history than fiat, actually.

What makes Bitcoin superior is that it's easy to transact with without using trusted intermediaries like banks.

[shamc]

If scaled better then it can be used because it is now well known globally and used in countries with shite economies. Hence it is becoming widely used across south america and will probably soon take over africa

[deisik]

Sure. It's just not intrinsic. Intrinsic value regards nature -- innate characteristics, i.e. the elemental uses of gold in industry or the consumptive value of cocoa beans

You don't get it, really

Transactional utility cannot be separated from money and for a very simple reason. Money, conceptually, is impossible without transactional utility as this is what makes it money in the first place. Without it, it is not money. How it is made and by whom exactly, i.e. by government, people, or otherwise, is a totally different question

And your claim that it can't be intrinsic because it doesn't exist in nature is as irrelevant since from this very point of view money itself doesn't exist either. It can be said that it is a virtual construct (remember, money is what money does). Honestly, you are repeating things which are inconsequential to the concept of money