> Dollars were useless in 1968, Hmmm. Go on.... > but you could exchange them for a useful commodity. That sounds useful though. That sounds like dollars hav

> Dollars were useless in 1968, Hmmm. Go on.... > but you could exchange them for a useful commodity. That sounds useful though. That sounds like dollars have (or represent or store) utility. Really, it sounds like you're making the point that Bitcoin isn't a commodity and is therefore valueless, which I have a tough time agreeing with (the marketplace also currently disagrees with the idea). Neither real-estate nor services are a commodity and they both have economic value. If that's not your point it seems that there is a misunderstanding of what "useless" and "has no value" mean in the context of describing Bitcoin (and dollars?), and that we've not come to terms on what those phrases exactly mean so that we ensure we're examining the same set of thoughts built with the same set of words.