Max Keiser published articles arguing that Bitcoin comes with an intrinsic worth in its privacy. In accordance with that content, Bitcoin versus Aristotelian intrinsic worth is really a match. In Aristotle’s function, intrinsic value specifies any worth an object has independently to be money.
So its intrinsic worth results from its useful attributes as a commodity (instead of as money). However, Bitcoin pays to only as money. Then, evidently Max Keiser’s argument will be wrong. For not really being helpful as a commodity, Bitcoin does not have any intrinsic value. However, there exists a situation in which all cash becomes a commodity. That circumstance is its exchange for another form of cash.
Whenever bought or sold, cash becomes a commodity. For all of us to get or sell a monetary item, that item must remain its mere chance for being money: actual cash can only just play the active role — because the buying object — in virtually any transaction, rather than its passive role — because the bought or sold item. It must be only possibility to play this final role.
Then, because money often belongs either within an actual or simply possible transaction, we should call it when real or active, transacting money, so when merely probable or passive, transacted cash. As thus, whenever transacted, cash becomes a commodity. In order actual, transacting money, Bitcoin does not have any intrinsic value. However, as simply possible, transacted money, it can have an intrinsic value. The reason being, whenever purchased or marketed, Bitcoin’s intrinsic monetary attributes become its commodity properties.
Consequently, if Bitcoin grew to become the only currency of the planet, its intrinsic worth would vanish. Without other currency to get it and for which to market itself, Bitcoin no longer is actually a commodity. It only could possibly be actual cash. Bitcoin’s intrinsic value depends upon its being able to contend with various other currencies (as a transacted, purchased or sold commodity).
There exists a difference between transaction personal privacy and public-key privacy. There exists a difference between exchange worth depending on and getting itself whichever utilities or attributes. The privacy of Bitcoin dealings depends upon Bitcoin’s public-key privacy, that is one of its properties. Similarly, its intrinsic value perhaps depends upon its allowing transaction privacy, that is among its utilities.
Public-key personal privacy, by producing transaction privacy achievable, we can give Bitcoin its intrinsic worth as a bought or marketed commodity (for instance, in Bitcoin exchanges). Intrinsic worth is the exchange worth of utilities caused by intrinsic properties. Lastly, Bitcoin has other attributes than public-key personal privacy, like its ubiquity and safety — both unidentified to Aristotle.
Those properties furthermore make Bitcoin helpful, despite in different ways. It is because of most such utilities — instead of because of transaction privacy — that people can give Bitcoin its value. So Bitcoin is perhaps a commodity but only once transacted. Only then, its (simply possible) value becomes its intrinsic worth.