Yeah - I get that subtext. The fly in that ointment is that the value of Bitcoin (for any rational definition of 'value', which OP steadfastly refuses to define) is increasing spectacularly. By this criteria alone, it cannot be the Nash Other Alternative.
IOW, in no way does it resemble a duck.
As an aside, this is the very property that has led to the economy singling out Bitcoin.
You don't understand the difference between value and price. Just because and exchange tells you price is "x" doesn't mean the value is also "x".
You are just again clearly showing you have no understanding of market theory or global/macro-economics.
To be quite respectable, in a Gresham-advised sense, money needs only to be AS GOOD as other material commod-ities that might be hoarded.
Bitcoin absolutely fits this perfectly.
Here is the wiki on bitcoin's money supply:
This decreasing-supply algorithm was chosen because it approximates the rate at which commodities like gold are mined.
And there is no proper definition of value in this regard which is the EXACT nature of the problem and the proposal to solve it by means of a metric for value. A metric allows you to define somethings value, and without it you cannot.
This is simple simple stuff.