It has no more utility than a direct clone. None whatsoever. It's a nonsense claim to say it has more than any other - it has less uility than most! Many of the alts added many new capabilities.

The US Dollar is supported by a government that will help adjust supply, interest rates etc to keep its value roughly stable and it's utility in place. By design Bitcoin has none of this stuff.

I'm not making arguments about intrinsic value, I am saying that the value of BTC is built on sand much more than a national currency, and it's limited supply street cred is no sort of guarantee, based as it is on brand.

US dollar is supported by a government (or more precisely a central bank) just like Greece and Venezuela is. But who supports the government? A government can default. The USD can default. It is only in very recent times that currencies have been stable (at the cost of having to grow the economy to beat the inflation) historically they haven't. Just ask the Germans in the 30ies.

It's an illusion to think that just because a government is behind a currency it's exempt from loosing all it's value.

The lender of last resort is the government but governments can fail.

Just because they are stable today does not make them stable tomorrow.

Bitcoin has more utility than a clone because it has a unique history and a unique set of backers (the network) and those backers have exactly the same function as they state.

Bitcoin is better supported than some currencies and worse supported than others. But it exist in that spectrum not separate from it.

I didn't say it's exempt from losing value, however we have some fairly good means of trying to ensure that doesn't happen, which have been relatively successful of late.

With Cryptocurrencies there are none, by design.

>> Bitcoin has more utility than a clone because it has a unique history and a unique set of backers (the network) and those backers have exactly the same function as they state.

This is utter nonsense, backers have none of the power of the state to alter supply, set rates etc etc.

>> Bitcoin is better supported than some currencies and worse supported than others. But it exist in that spectrum not separate from it.

Well, given the fees, processing times, lack of support mechanisms and transaction processing limits, I'd say it's a damn poor one.

No it's not nonsense at all. A country can default no matter the intentions and attempts of it's government.

There is always a reality. That same reality plays out differently with bitcoin compared to the USD but fundamentally there is no absolute base for either currency nor bitcoin. And history is littered with examples of this.

That's not what I called nonsense.

The nonsense part was you saying that the BTC community back the currency like a government. They can't, the currency doesn't work that way.

In what way are they different besides the trivial differences? Who backs the state?

Because the state can create more currency, change interest rates and various other things that cannot be done with Bitcoin. This is by design and is widely celebrated by the community.

I'm surprised you don't know this.

You arent answering the question. Who backs the state?

The question is irrelevant, there is a clear difference between the 'backing' of a state which can manipulate the currency supply directly and the backing of entities that cannot.

You claimed that bitcoin's backers have the same power as the state. They do not. End of story.

No I claimed that they have the same function. Neither of them can secure against defaulting completely but the function is the same. There is enough inertia in the bitcoin network enough people with most of the bitcoins gotten at a very low price and holding, other words there is a base.

So no it's not irrelevant it's the very core of this discussion.