> Commodities have intrinsic value. Currencies aren't commodities and have no innate value. The represent wealth, they aren't themselves wealth. > In the case

> Commodities have intrinsic value. Currencies aren't commodities and have no innate value. The represent wealth, they aren't themselves wealth. > In the case of a government-backed currency, there's at least some value based on that government's ability to mandate its use for taxes. That begs the question -- by which I mean it assumes what it should be proving (the real meaning of "beg the question"). The fact that government collects taxes using dollars as a medium of exchange doesn't mean the government's action validates dollars, but that government gives dollars the same regard the public does, for reasons having nothing to do with government itself. > This doesn't mean that Bitcoin can't be valued but it means that the community has to have a strategy to provide equivalent reassurances. The validity of dollars results from public familiarity, faith and trust. This may or may not happen with Bitcoin, but that's the usual route to currency validation.