[llamataboot]

There’s lots of things worth lots of money that don’t have much use value. So yes, in a market, the definition of price/value is generally where supply and demand meet.

As for why people currently /want/ bitcoin, I assume some people find it a good speculation instrument, some people hope that it will be a more stable store of value than fiat currencies, some people have political reasons for wanting to own some, some technical, etc

What’s to explain beyond what’s there at face value? People “want” bitcoin enough to buy it, other people are willing to sell it...

Now as we move further and further away from BTC (not including significantly different cryptocurrencies - ethereum has other advantages for example) into like dogecoin, which has held value for years, it’s clear that we are getting mostly into pure speculation territory. But from a market perspective, even that territory is fine, just don’t want to be the last one holding the bag...

[pmiller2]

This is roughly what I've been telling the HODLers among my friends and acquaintances for years: there is no intrinsic, fundamental reason why BTC has value. It has value because people say it has value. And, if that sounds awfully like the "fiat currency" they tend to heap so much derision on, well, it should.

The USD is nothing more than an "economy token" to show how much one is winning capitalism. Likewise, BTC is some sort of economy token, but I'm not sure what it means. I'm sure the bottom will fall out of BTC far sooner than the USD, and I will welcome that day, because then we can repurpose the electrical power that runs the BTC network toward productive uses, rather than propping up some financialized mirage.

[shawnz]

You are right that fiat currency and bitcoins are alike in that they both have no intrinsic value. I don't think any "bitcoin evangelist" would say otherwise.

[ineedasername]

It's not about "winning capitalism". Money is simply an abstraction layer over something like direct bartering which has liquidity problems that increase with the complexity and number of goods & services on offer. I might agree that capitalism is about "winning" and money is used to keep score, but not that money is intrinsically tied to that game. And there might be a better abstraction layer you could place over people's time & effort than either money or direct bartering. Command economies are one option, but economies seem quite a bit too complex for that to be a feasible alternative at the moment. There's probably other options, but I'm certainly not smart enough to think of something new on that topic.