Quote from: MJGrae on January 14, 2013, 05:18:24 PM

Quote from: xxjs on January 14, 2013, 05:13:49 PM

Quote from: MJGrae on January 14, 2013, 02:52:46 PM

Quote from: hazek on January 14, 2013, 02:25:50 AM

Did I get any of the facts wrong? Is my reasoning flawed?

I don't see any facts that are wrong. In fact if he really wants to argue the idea that there is supposedly nothing backing bitcoins, you can pull the Ace and say that the original value of a bitcoin was equal to the electricity (electrons, copper wire degraded, silicon & chipsets depreciation) that went into the creation of it. On top of that, because of those qualities and the fact that they were packaged into a nice little electronic token gave a slight buffer not to the intrinsic value but to the perceived value which, again, can be traced back to what the perceived value of other commodity currencies were at their own times.

I think you're spot on.

The electricity that went into creating the block could not be intrinsic value of bitcoins - because you can not take the electricity out again.

But couldn't you say that the resources were exhausted and therefore the remnant of them is the coin? I'm not referring in this case to an exchange, but that the bitcoin itself is an extension of the very things it consumed in being created.

Though I suppose on second thought that isn't a very good parallel, since we do not think of dollars as having any value for the paper they are printed on (though we theoretically could).

Consider the value of the ashes of beautiful furniture.