Log0s, in the past 36 hours, here and elsewhere I've thought you saw something that I was trying to express, but we were using very different words from different angles of attack. But there's a step that I miss and your conclusions surprise me.

I can agree with you that a bitcoin unit was not first a good before it was declared a money and therefor has no inherent value as a commodity. I don't think the order of events matters very much. We could have a money and then discover that it's a wildly useful commodity. But the bottom could always fall out (just like fiat) if it's utility is solely based on its use as a money.

I think your emphasis on the ledger service is the correct perspective. But why don't you see the service as inherently valuable? There exist similar services in various shapes and sizes, but no service has the unique set of properties including a momentous network effect, that bitcoin currently enjoys.

Bitcoin may be a horrible storage of value (arguable), an unreliable unit of account (volatility makes this true), but the system provides a revolutionary exchange of value. So, perhaps today it does not act as money, nor is it a physical commodity. But if you will allow for a new coined term (pun intended) bitcoin transactions are already a valuable fungible "service commodity", from which we can hope the other properties of money will emerge.