Decent point. In all the discussion about the HOUR being a random non-backed currency I didn’t really think about the peg. Technically I would suppose a peg would mean it is backed. That makes me wonder why the HOUR gives Dave so much trouble.
Either way, I don’t know what the debate is about. The quote is right there. "an object cannot be used as money unless, at the moment when its use as money begins, it already possesses an objective exchange-value based on some other use." Bitcoin has completely refuted this. The only way you could argue that it hasn’t is if you do what Dave basically did in the other thread and claim “well, it doesn’t count because it’s not a real currency, it’s a fad. It hasn’t been around long enough to be considered a real currency.”
No true Scotsman or not, the fact of the matter is Bitcoin has been used as a money and at the moment its use as a money began it DID NOT already possess an objective exchange-value based on some other use. How could it? The main crux of Dave, et .al.'s argument is that it has no other use. So despite how one may want to dance around the definition of what constitutes a currency vs. a “fad” or how one wants to rest on the laurels of “well, uh…those people are just dumb”, the fact remains Mises appears to have been proven wrong.