Most people here are austrians and regard bitcoin as money. The problem with the regression theorem has been discussed in depth. It is either wrong, or bitcoin is a follow up to fiat money.
Wrong. Sorry. The Regression Theorem is right, just the understanding of many people (even learned people) is wrong.
The Regression Theorem answer a simple question: "what is the value of a fiat currency based on"?.
It explain the currency today's value is based on the value of the currency yesterday (or one hour ago).
Then you can take back to the last time it was convertible in gold (or something else like silver, salt, fur, etc.)
Then you can take the value of gold (or whatever was used at the time) from the last moment it was convertible in fiat at a fixed rate until the first time it was used as an indirect mean of exchange.
Then what could be the value of gold, at the time, based on?
It was based on its direct use value (because there was nothing else to give it value).
People usually understand this as "to be money you need to start from some commodity with value, better if it have a large value".
And they are not completely wrong, because larger is the value (compared to its weight and size) better as a money these commodities will perform.
But it don't say "something without a direct use value" can not become money or a mean of indirect exchange (money being the most accepted and available of these).
If it has the ideal characteristic of money (by design) it can start from zero and climb from there just starting from a non-zero value introduced just by chance. What I call "noise".
