If you look at the original paper, it's pretty clear that Bitcoin was meant to be peer-to-peer electronic cash: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
In practice, it has failed at this aim. I don't think that was necessarily so; plenty of things start out rough and become more useful over time. But the mechanics-adorers I've talked with seemed willfully blind to all the practical issues. We can't fix problems we refuse to see, so Bitcoin has preserved its machinery at the expense of fulfilling its vision.
They succeeded by expanding the mechanism to support actual discovered user needs. Which is what Bitcoin signally failed to do.
Besides, AirBnb didnt even fail in providing accommodation for conference goers with included breakfast. It still works perfectly in its original intended use.
Bitcoin was a political experiment before it was a technological one. You don't pivot political beliefs the way you pivot a business. The technological experiment is still ongoing, but the political experiment has failed its goals.
Really, though, I think the closest financial match is a private currency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_currency
These are illegal in most places because they historically have caused a lot of problems without much in the way of redeeming value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_the_United_States#1...
Digital currencies can be used via computers and networks while physical currencies such as banknotes and gold requires sneakernet.
I use technology to solve problems for people. The few niches Bitcoin has found (e.g., speculation, money laundering, ransoms, light drug crime) are not really what I would call solving problems for people.
Bitcoin has property similar to cash to many extend. It was not technically possible before its invention and as such as it is a real intrinsect value (dont ask me to quantify it)
Regardless, your point doesn't make a lot of sense, because many Germans surveyed on this say they use cash because it gives them better control over spending and more clarity as to where their money goes. Bitcoin is in no way superior to a debit card in that regard.
The value of new possibility isn't really intrinsic; you measure it through seeing if people actually use it. With Bitcoin they mostly don't, which suggests that it is at best more useful to a small slice of people.
There would seem to be organizations (states?) that can wield tremendous resources to mine Bitcoins. I would think this would devalue the currency and, as is so often the case in life, fuck over the little people.
Never mind the insane amount of actual energy resources needed for this virtual currency. It almost seems immoral.
And with exploits like the one in this article, how can anyone continue to have confidence in it? It feels more akin to Confederate money printed during the U.S. Civil War.
Then it hits the real world, and suddenly what people actually do with it and its valuation is dependent on how the exchanges operate (are exchanges even mentioned in the original paper?), energy prices in China, media coverage, interactions with alt-coins, etc.