Emphasis mine. It does exist, it's just intangible. There's a whole difference, if we replace your word with mine. Bitcoin is a digitally represented asset and it's being distributed as a “debt” to everyone using it. If someone signed me a digital signature saying that these units are now owned by BlackHatCoiner, it means that he just created a debt to me and it can be seen from what we call “block chain”, which also a digital and hence, intangible chain.

Stating that Bitcoin doesn't exist should mean that Internet doesn't as well. But, being able to read this message thousands miles away is a clear proof that internet does exist. It's just intangible.

You should picture it in another way. Imagine a 3D printer printing tangible items called “bitcoins” every 10 minutes and whoever was near the machine could earn them. If some people (bitcoins' owners) started using these coins as a medium of exchange, you'd say that they do exist. What exactly would it change if instead of tangible items, we had a public ledger showing who owns what and that we knew that this ledger can't be censored or erased by anyone's will. It'd not make bitcoins non-existing, but rather intangible. And that's because that ledger wouldn't show an IOU.

If anyone is convinced that Bitcoin can be used as a medium of exchange through the internet, then why not using it? No one forced you to believe that being a debtor in this system will be beneficial to you. The whole system relies on the belief that people will use that censorship-resistant ledger as a way to transact their value.

And due to the above, I answer to that too:
Satoshi never forced anyone to use Bitcoin. Whoever found it useful, could consider it a medium of exchange. (S)He never lied to anyone.

Sure, it may still be an experiment, who knows what's waiting for us in the next decades. I personally doubt if it's a ticking bomb.

---

---

Anyway, nice post, even if I disagree to lots of your arguments. It's nice to see people expressing their opinions upon this digital era.