Dollars have intrinsic value in that you can burn them to keep warm, gold you can make things out of, Bitcoins have no possible use outside of being a currency, thus no intrinsic value.
I certainly can't burn the dollars in my bank account.
Not directly anyway.
I have to go somewhere and take cash out which then I can burn, assuming the bank has that kind of money available when I attempt it and assuming I will be allowed to take it out.
Furthermore in many places such activity would be illegal.
Anyone arguing about Bitcoin without admitting that there is demand and basing everything on outdated/flowed theories is bound to be wrong with their predictions.
I was just pointing out Greenspan's statement was correct. Obviously dollars have a higher extrinsic then intrinsic value.
I think Greenspan's point was that just like with stocks you have to be careful investing in things that have low intrinsic values, ie a company that is valued very high but doesn't make much money. This is why people view gold as a safer investment then dollars, it has a higher intrinsic value.
Dollar's are backed by a large hegemonic power, with control of its armed forces, which is capable of extracting taxes from its population.
This makes them valuable, unless you expect the US government to fall shortly. Bitcoin does not have these features. It also does not have the normal features of a commodity (i.e. industrial uses).
This means it has zero intrinsic value - nothing stablizes or enforces its value in anyway.
