0.) Ouch, I struck a cord?
1.) A fiat currency evaluated at any point in time is valuable because it was valuable at a preceding time. Cause and effect… blah blah blah… until you reach a commodity that had some function in a society. (Even if the function was entirely aesthetic.)
2.) The regression theorum does not apply to Bitcoin because Bitcoin is not a fiat currency. The regression theorum was postulated to solve the problem of the value of fiat money. The value of bitcoin is subjective, but so is the value of gold.
Gold is not a fiat currency because it is scarce and it’s value is attained through mutual voluntary transactions throughout society. The exact same thing can be said for Bitcoins. The original value of Gold was purely aesthetics. The original value of Bitcoins is very similar; the “solutions” to very complex hashes.
As Michael Suede said, Bitcoins do not have intrinsic value, but they do have intrinsic attributes that are valued in society for a medium of exchange. (Though I disagree symantically that this disproves the Regression Theorum.)
3.) Flawed reasoning certainly leads to bad conclusions.
4.) I was just sharing my observation, I think it was very accurate and not at all baseless.
5.) That does not apply here. What concepts do you think I am not correctly disassociating?
Regretting making a Thread on this subject, there were already plenty to choose from…