This is precisely what I don't get about cryptocurrencies. There is no intrinsic value, and they're not even backed by the full faith and credit of, well, anyone. I don't see why it's "worth" anything.
And, we don't need a digital currency. We already have a bunch of them (the US dollar among them). Most money in the world doesn't exist as physical coins, notes, gold/silver, etc. It's all bits in a computer, but those bits are backed by a sovereign entity. That's why we are able to use them as currency.
If anyone can explain the fundamentals of why BTC or any other cryptocurrency should have any value whatsoever, I would really appreciate that.
> And, we don't need a digital currency. We already have a bunch of them [...]
That's a bit enraging to me. I feel it's in the same class of arguments with things like earth is flat -- we don't want a round one, blacks are not humans -- they should be happy we grant them slavery. The status quo is our normality.
> backed by a sovereign entity
Which one? I had savings to buy several apartments but in a few years those savings were worth a lunch. That was a long time ago. But as of now my income depends on US, EU, Syria, Turkey etc crisis and hell knows what other stuff I don't even hear about on the news.
As a guy lacking both bitcoins and real money they both weight as a surprisingly similar amount of crap.
I've always felt this argument is disingenuous. People traded goods and services prior to government-backed currency. Being backed by a government sure does simplify things and make more people value it but it isn't necessary. Government-backed money can turn into Monopoly money as well.
Lest you forget 1920's Germany [0].
The part that makes BTC relatively safe to transact with is the blockchain itself.