Comment: Does intangible = worthless?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Bitcoin is not money (see in situ)

Does intangible = worthless?

1) If you believe that something must be "tangible" to have value, why are you wasting your time on the internet?

2) Aristotle's properties of good money: Durable, Portable, Divisible, Intrinsic Value. Gold is pretty good, though it can be destroyed and once we figure out that whole "fusion" thing, it can be created. It's portable, unless you need to buy a car or a house. It's divisible, but not too practical if you're just buying a can of soda.

Then we come to instrinsic value. PM-bugs always claim that the metal is worth something. But honestly, jewelry doesn't have much utility, and gold-plated HDMI cables don't offer noticable advantages over the basic ones. So what utility does the metal *actually* have?

Bitcoin by comparison is more durable than gold, infinitely more portable (by speed and weight), it's effortlessly divisible down to 8 decimal places (or more if required). But does it have intrinsic value?

Given that Bitcoins are programmatically scarce and will never exceed 21M units (no inflation beyond that point), are not succeptible to tyrannical force (like your gold safe is), can be accessed from anywhere in the world, it circumvents banks, and circumvents governments? Yes. Bitcoin has Intrinsic Value.

But if you truly believe that you must be able to hold something in your hand in order for it to be "real", throw your computer away, because you'll never need it again.