"Bitcoin would have no value"
I agree. All value is in people serving one another and making things for one another in mutual trades. We need to work together and serve one another to live. As it says in AS, you can make that happen under threats or let people do it voluntarily using money, there are no other ways.

However, that is no different than saying water is a currency. Gold has little value in any manufacturing sense. There are much better conductors of electricity. Gold only has value because people think it is pretty. The tangibility of gold is about as relevant as the tangibility of firewood. It's all relative. As long as there is electricity, Bitcoin will have value.

While I too like gold, there is nothing more real about it than Bitcoin. Gold has value because people believe it has value. It's usefulness in manufacturing is rather moot at best. Bitcoin has value because people believe it has value. If we had a global thermonuclear war, lost all electricity on the planet, and people were scrambling for fresh water and food, then obviously Bitcoin would have no value, but gold would probably have no value as well. Water and bullets would probably be the currency-du-jour.

My thoughts exactly. Gold is useful in electronic applications for one thing. While I was stationed (with the USAF) at McDonnell-Douglas I saw a rocket booster motor that had a very think sheet of gold covering some of its electronics. Some windshields had a thin sheet of gold that, when electricity was applied, defrosted the windshield. (Gold can be beat so thin you can see through it.)
It would have lots of other uses were it not so hard to acquire - thus the reason it is expensive. Because bitcoin has no use other then as a medium of exchange (even if the supply is limited) I do not trust it to hold its value. To be money a commodity has to have three characteristics: "The main functions of money are as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value." While bitcoin could serve these functions if there were some way to insure that it remained a store of value, given that there are no other uses of bitcoin (as there are gold) its value depends entirely on the willingness of others to accept it in exchange for something of value to them. Unlike other forms of money, bitcoin is not a useful commodity.

Source: Boundless. “Functions of Money.” Boundless Business. Boundless, 08 Aug. 2016. Retrieved 20 Oct. 2016 from https://www.boundless.com/business/te...

I think you may be confused with the definition of fiat currency.

Definition-

"Fiat money is a currency established as money by government regulation or law. The term derives from the Latin fiat ("let it be done", "it shall be") used in the sense of an order or decree. It differs from commodity money and representative money."

In the case of Bitcoin, we are talking about an actual commodity money. Yes the commodity is derived from electricity and computing power, but it still has value if people believe it has value. While gold can be useful in certain manufacturing aspects, it is not the most efficient mineral to be used in any particular case. It has value because people have decided to give it value. No different than Bitcoin.

I would guess, from many discussions with others that eventually we will be living in the same type world as did the Neanderthals, bartering to meet our needs. Disgusting in that all this mess is caused by BIG GOVERNMENT.

We may be getting through to a politician or two, but so far I haven't noticed any regular leftist seeing eye to eye with us. I surely do hope you are right, but I remain doubtful.

I think you confuse the issue of fiat and government-backed. They are different things. I agree that governments can't control bitcoin and I love that aspect of things. Fiat currency, however, is that for which there is no physical commodity backing. Bitcoin can not be redeemed in any physical commodity, therefore by definition it is fiat currency.

You can only buy gold with bitcoin if the person with the gold believes in the value of bitcoin. That is the very definition of a fiat currency, is it not? Gold is not only useful as a representation of wealth, but it has actual physical uses. It has extrinsic as well as intrinsic value.

I'm not trying to say that bitcoin isn't valuable. I'm just pointing out that it exists only ethereally. There is nothing tangible about it.

I view the article as little more than the usual political trivia. For however long as we "humans" allow ourselves to be Ruled by Force, this entire spectrum of the issues bestowed upon all will continue ad nauseum.
I do believe that BitCoin is a commendable effort toward wresting control of "money" from the Rulers to the individuals. It's a part of the rush to a digital world, in which nothing is real, and the gibberish of so-called "smart" phones is taking over.
For example, when the Great Global Collapse finally hits, will the Rulers pull the plug? Then will we continue to have electricity paid for with blips in the cyberworld?

Definitely not fiat currency. The backing is 100% natural supply and demand. The supply is already set and cannot change (after the set amount has been fully mined). Demand is determined simply by those who choose to use it.

No government can have any control over it since there is nothing centralized about it. The only way a government could stop it within it's own borders would be to completely shut down access to internet and cell phone service.

Call me old-fashioned, but I like to have REAL money that I can hold in my hand and easily transport if I need to move. That is spelled G-O-L-D.

Maybe, but not to the extent gold is for an inflation hedge. Bitcoins price is stabilizing in that it isn't fluctuating wildly like it use to.

Bitcoin is a great way to send gold electronically.
I can buy gold with bitcoin. It's a great way to move digital value back to something real.

That is not accurate. Why does gold have value?
It's rare and limited, it takes work to mine it, it has recognized value.
The same is true with Bitcoin, it to is rare and limited, it requires work to mine it, and it has a recognized trade value.
Both are fungible, immutable, and tangible.
I can buy gold with bitcoin, and vice-versa.
Fiat is just created out of thin air, and its value is based on faith in a gov't

I have my several years old black baseball camp with "Who Is John Galt" emblazoned on it, courtesy of the Galt's Gulch store. I get lots of funny looks in this increasingly liberal (and stupid) community. Depending on how glass eyed and slack jawed the questioners is, I attempt to indicate it's a character in a novel called "Atlas Shrugged" and they are either interested at that point, or they have that look in their eyes that indicates they are about to call security or run away screaming.
Hey, it passes the time until Armageddon.

One thing that still bugs me about bitcoin, however, is that it - like all others - is also a fiat currency with no backing. I think that fundamentally it could be less susceptible to political meddling (unlike the Federal Reserve), but that detail still bugs me.

The lib-progs don't like anything that takes power away from government and returns it to the people. Loss of power is their greatest fear.

That's a very good point I hadn't thought of.

Maybe crypto-currencies will be like the phone and mail. Those use to be the two ways to contact someone over a distance. Then came e-mail. Now there are so many services people use. Some people don't use e-mail or phone as much. They're on Skype, WhatsApp, Slack, Google Messenger, and FB. There's not one thing that everyone uses. If the gov't keeps borrowing and it leads to a monetary crisis, I could see people just abandoning the USD. Agreements would be in USD but indexed to other currencies or futures contracts. It would be confusing but would save the economy. In this scenario, central bank currencies would stay around like the Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS), obsolete and slowly becoming too expensive to maintain given dwindling usage.

Her philosophy is becoming more widely known even if not widely accepted, judging by the casual use of her name in an offhand comment by Hillary's campaign manager.

This is at least the third mention of Ayn Rand by either Clinton or Trump in the last few days! Perhaps we are starting to get through!

Good observation. Its effect is small but growing, imo.

I wonder if Bitcoin and its clones are fulfilling some of the functions that used to be fulfilled by gold, and what this means to the demand for gold (and the price of gold) going forward.

And it prevents the unbridled inflation of the currency that serves only banksters and looters. Can't have a currency that preserves its value for those who use it. Got to have one that lets government kick the can down the road and burden the elderly and future generations with massive debt. Meanwhile all the banksters CEOS get multimillions in bonuses and golden parachute retirement when they are let go, then they take rich positions in the Treasury dept and sign up for million dollar government pensions as they manipulate markets to benefit Goldman Sachs and the Clintons.
Bitcoin is definitely an inferior currency.