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.
If I use a house for satisfying the want of shelter, I do not "consume" the house. If I use a car for satisfying the want of transportation, I do not "consume" the car. If I use gold for satisfying the want of store and transfer of value, I do not "consume" the gold.
That's just more nonsense.
Yes it is my definition of a financial instrument. So?
So, Bitcoin doesn't fit your definition of a "Financial Instrument", and therefore should not be considered a "Financial Instrument" for the purposes of this conversation.
Bitcoin issuers are those who wrote the whitepaper, released the bitcoin software and launched the network.
Not true.
There was no payment made for any of those things. Those individuals provided a service (for free), and issued nothing.
If I write a whitepaper about how the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank works, it does not make the issuer of U.S. dollars. If I write software that the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank uses to track the dollars that it issues, it does not make me the issuer of U.S. dollars. If I set up a network for the U.S. Federal Reserve to operate their systems, it does not make me the issuer of U.S. dollars.
This is just more nonsense.
Bitcoins don't just pop up into existence from nowhere. They have issuers like everything else.
They actually do "pop up into existence". Or, perhaps you could think of it more like, they always have been and always will be in existence, they are just "found" (much like gold).
Finally, Bitcon is not gold.
Correct. It is Bitcoin. If it was gold, it wouldn't be worth as much.
Gold is an actual, tangible good that has value on its own.
Bitcoin is an actual intangible good that has value on its own.
Bitcoin is a number - a mathematical abstraction next to your virtual address.
Bitcoin is much more than that.
On its own it's worthless.
Clearly not.
You are doing nothing but playing semantics and red herring.
I've said utilizing or consuming. You utilize a car. You consume an apple.
Bitcoin fits my definition of a financial instruments as Bitcon is a record and all financial instruments are digital or paper records that are worthless on their own. But, Bitcoins lacks the fundamental feature for which all financial instruments exist in the first place, and that is to provide payment to their holders. Bitcon pays nothing. Hence, it is a worthless financial instrument.
Bitcoins don't pop up into existence, but are put into existence by design. That means they have issuers.
Declaring Bitcoin an actual intangible good doesn't make it valuable.