Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 04, 2020, 02:26:24 PM

Quote from: antikvark on February 04, 2020, 05:02:56 AM

Value of financial instruments(records on digital, paper, plastic or metal medium) comes from payments that their issuers provide to their holders. Fiat currencies, the same as bonds, stocks, CFD-s, futures, options, ... are records whose issuers provide various types of payments to their holders during the circulation of these instruments, or at their maturity, liquidation or withdrawal from circulation.

Using your definition of "Financial Instrument", it is clear that

Quote from: DannyHamilton on February 03, 2020, 02:24:02 PM

. . . It is more like a commodity than a "financial instrument". There are no "issuers" of Bitcoin, just like there are no "issuers" of gold.

Control over Bitcoins offers value on its own, so there is no need for "some payment to holders".

Quote from: antikvark on February 04, 2020, 08:28:01 AM

It's true that BTC and USD are only digital or paper records, but USD issuers (banks) provide USD holders with payments in the form of interest, non-monetary value or collateral, as explained in the video. Bitcon issuers on the other hand, pay nothing to Bitcon holders.

There are no Bitcoin issuers. Just like holders of gold are not paid interest or collateral for holding gold, holders of Bitcoin are not paid interest of collateral for holding Bitcoin.

Quote from: hv_ on February 04, 2020, 09:20:52 AM

What do you think is mostly driving price up for BTC ?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pricediscovery.asp

Quote from: hv_ on February 04, 2020, 09:20:52 AM

I'm convinced it is only speculation.

Speculation is nothing more than market participants contributing towards price discovery. Speculators both buy (provide demand) AND sell (provide supply). For every purchase of bitcoin at an exchange, there is someone willing to sell at that price. For every sale, there is someone willing to buy at that price. There are millions of variables that all contribute to the spot price being what it is. Any attempt to label a single thing as the cause of the current price is nonsense and futile.

Quote from: antikvark on February 04, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

People don't seem to be able to grasp that declaring something "virtual asset" doesn't automatically mean it has value.

And declaring it a "Financial Instrument" and then stating that it is worthless doesn't automatically mean that it is worthless.

Quote from: antikvark on February 04, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

Value is the benefit that a thing in itself provides to people.

Finally, we are in agreement on something. And yet, somehow, you don't seem to believe that Bitcoin provides a benefit to people?

Quote from: antikvark on February 04, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

In goods and services this banefit is the ability of a thing to satisfy a particular want.

Agreed. And Bitcoin definitely satisfies various particular wants of various people.

Quote from: antikvark on February 04, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

In financial instruments this benefit is payment that instrument issuer makes to instrument holder.

Bitcoin has no issuer, therefore, it appears not to fit your definition of "Financial Instrument". Perhaps if you stop thinking of it as something with an issuer, you'll begin to see that it gets its value from its ability to "satisfy a particular want" and stop demanding that the issuers that don't exist pay something to the holders.

Quote from: antikvark on February 04, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

Bitcoin is a few digits in a memory.

Bitcoin is more than that.

Quote from: antikvark on February 04, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

So one cannot use it for want satisfying.

You are clearly mistaken. Many people DO use it for "want satisfying".

Quote from: antikvark on February 04, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

Nor its issuer pays something to its holder.

It has no issuer.

Quote from: antikvark on February 04, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

This renders Bitcon worthless

It does not.

Quote from: antikvark on February 04, 2020, 10:32:10 AM

and declaring it asset, money, digital gold, coin, or whatever, won't make this fact go away.

And declaring it a Financial Instrument, and demanding that an imaginary issuer pay interest won't make it worthless either.

Using a thing for want satisfying means utilizing or consuming a thing. It doesn't mean transferring a thing from one person to another. Nobody can utilize or consume bitcoin. Bitcoin can only be passed from hand to hand, like membership stakes in ponzi-like schemes.

Yes it is my definition of a financial instrument. So? Defining something simply means describing exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of it. Which was what I did. Where is the problem?

Bitcoin issuers are those who wrote the whitepaper, released the bitcoin software and launched the network. Bitcoins don't just pop up into existence from nowhere. They have issuers like everything else.

Finally, Bitcon is not gold. Gold is an actual, tangible good that has value on its own. Bitcoin is a number - a mathematical abstraction next to your virtual address. On its own it's worthless.