Then I'm really confused, because money requires an intrinsic value by definition.  However, it might be lost in translation because based on this thread, many don't understand the word "intrinsic".  It's a tough one to explain, but gold has intrinsic value because it is valued outside of the context of an orginized intent to support it.  Fiat currencies have negligble intrinsic value because most of their value (as a medium of exchange) is directly related to the support of a third party institution, in this case a functioning government.  If said government's future existance is put into question, the fiat currency's value is also.  Likewise, a currency issued by a bank, whether backed or not, is tied to the public's trust in that bank.  Something has intrinsic value if it is generally valued regardless of the issuing institution; such as the case of gold coins minted by long dead governments.  Commodities have intrinsic value because they can be used to build, fuel or eat.  I wouldn't say that bitcoins have any intrinsic value, because they have no usefulness outside of the context of a medium of exchange, and fundamentally depend upon the trustworthiness of the blockchain for their base value.  Bitcoins are, therefore, not money and not a commodity.  Bitcoins are only a currency, but an intentionally designed "natural" currency because they are only accepted by choice and have no artificial support from legal tender or tax payment laws.