[haakon]

> The USD has had zero intrinsic value since the end of the gold standard. That's why, by definition, it is called a fiat currency.

The definition of "fiat money" depends on who defines it, but in my eyes the most correct definition is "any money declared by a government to be legal tender". Fiat literally means "let it be done", as in a declaration. The U.S. dollar is fiat because the U.S. government says it is money, and it was fiat under the gold standard as well.

Even under the gold standard, U.S. dollars did not have "intrinsic value" the way I understand it, which is to say value that comes from the physical properties of the object in question. There is a very tiny intrinsic value because you can burn U.S. bank notes for heat and things like that, but nothing else - gold standard or not. Gold may have some intrinsic value because it can aid industrial processes and fill teeth and make jewelry, but that is probably far away from explaining gold's market price today.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is not fiat, because no legal authority has declared that it shall be money.

[mrb]

Your definition of fiat is overly strict and unusual.

By law, the USD used to be convertible to gold at a legally defined USD-per-ounces rate. This legal rate is what gave it intrinsic value. All economist will agree with this statement. Any literature about the USD explains clearly that "the USD transitioned from the gold standard to a fiat currency".