“That is a good litmus test for intrinsic value.”
I’m tired of seeing this term. Please clarify which you believe: Value is intrinsic or value is subjective. They are mutually exclusive. Pick one.
“…this implies that bitcoin does depend on others buying into it”
Everything, gold included, depends on “others buying into it”. That’s just another way of saying others value it. Just like gold, bitcoin has intrinsic properties (certain mathematical properties as opposed to certain molecular properties) that people subjectively value for use as a medium of exchange. How is that so hard to understand?
I’m tired of seeing this term. Please clarify which you believe: Value is intrinsic or value is subjective. They are mutually exclusive. Pick one.
https://smilingdavesblog.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/bitcoin-and-intrinsic-value/ [lays it all out].
https://smilingdavesblog.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/was-mises-regression-theorem-a-mere-history-lesson/ [last paragraph].
If you know how to dig up old posts here, you can find one from me where I quote several prominent Austrians, living and dead, who use the phrase intrinsic value as a matter of course, despite their belief in the subjective theory of value.
Everything, gold included, depends on “others buying into it”.
Gold’s intrinsic value does not depend on others buying into it. See previous post.
You seem to concede in your first link that “intrinsic value” is a muddled use of the term so let’s dispense with it once and for all. Intrinsic: Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent. If the value of gold, for example, is intrinsic then it must have value to everyone at all times, since the value itself is inherent in its very nature. This is, of course, utterly absurd. I think we all understand that value is subjective and never intrinsic.
Now let’s get to a more accurate description: Gold has intrinsic properties that people subjectively value. While its intrinsic properties are valued for non-monetary use (jewelry, industrial applications, etc), as demonstrated by the market, they are primarily valued for monetary use. Bitcoin also has intrinsic properties that people subjectively value. While its intrinsic properties are valued for non-monetary use (digital identity verification, smart contracts, etc), as demonstrated by the market, they are primarily valued for monetary use.
If all you have is an appeal-to-authority type argument to the regression theorem as an explanation why a mathematically backed currency cannot succeed, then perhaps you need to revisit your understanding of the theorem or reconsider the theorem itself. The market has spoken. Bitcoin is being used and accepted as currency. Either it fits into the theorem or it refutes it.
“Gold’s intrinsic value does not depend on others buying into it.”
Muddling terms again. Gold’s intrinsic properties do not depend on others “buying into it” but gold’s value, which is subjectively and externally attributed, most certainly does.
You seem to concede in your first link that “intrinsic value” is a muddled use of the term…
First.
…its intrinsic properties are..primarily valued for monetary use
Second.
If all you have is an appeal-to-authority type argument to the regression theorem…
Third.
mathematically backed currency
Fourth.
Bitcoin is being used and accepted as currency.
Fifth.
Conclusion: Mashuri, I wish you the best.
“Gold’s intrinsic value does not depend on others buying into it.”
Muddling terms again. Gold’s intrinsic properties do not depend on others “buying into it” but gold’s value, which is subjectively and externally attributed, most certainly does.
Sixth.
Keep 'em coming. Don’t be discouraged if I don’t reply.
I’m actually quite encouraged by your lack of a reply. It speaks volumes. 
After I disproved Smiling Dave’s arguments and exposed his contradictions, he deleted my comments from his blog. I thought you guys might want to know.
Time to disengage. He’s not an honest opponent then. He’s being disproven daily and has ego invested in his position, which is not conducive to finding truth nor debate.
Personally I put my money where I mouth is. Just bought 10 bitcoin, looking to buy some more soon
To set the record straight, I deleted his rude comments and invited him to re-comment in a professional manner.
His latest buzzword is “secondary medium of exchange”. You are all invited to my blog to see my response. https://smilingdavesblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/what-is-a-medium-of-exchange/
Check the comments.
Nah, no thanks.
thanks dave, we all know you would prefer to discuss this subject in a forum where you can censor people, since your position became obviously untenable long ago. but keep spamming the boards, working that seo!
"“no good can be employed for the function of a medium of exchange which at the very beginning of its use for this purpose did not have exchange value on account of other employments.”
Did BitCoins have initial employments other than mere exchange? For example, that of granting the holder perhaps desirable feelings and status of geekiness and rebelliousness? Or perhaps that of providing the owner with the excitement of being an early participant in an alleged pyramid scheme?
they most certainly did, they were employed as a unit of account and as a form of communication.
By these standards, everything had value in some regard, rendering the distinction meaningless.
They originally were objects of financial speculation. Turned out to be a good bet so far.
In my opinion, bitcoin does not represent an exception to the regression theorem. In its beginning, before bitcoins were valued as money (assuming they are valued as money now), I believe they were valued as consumer goods, providing a psychic benefit to their buyers, who were of a certain ideology. In other words, libertarians bought them because they wanted an alternative currency to succeed.
Are bitcoins still merely exotic consumer goods or are they now valued as money? I don’t know, but even if they are now valued as money by at least some of their users, this says nothing about how they will retain their value over time, or how widespread their use might become.