Also, that chart looks nothing like the tulipomania or the bitcoin chart,
I have to object on that one, except for the burst of the bubble in the end, but ONLY for the tulip, not Bitcoin 
Well, when dealing with charts, you need to look at the peculiarities, the personality of the data series. The money supply chart has sudden jumps followed by plateaus where the supply levels off. Also, it's nearly monotonous rising.
This indicates a series of consecutive easings.
If it were a price chart, I'd say it was a commodity during a time of slowing production or growing demand. It looks like a very rational chart, very fundamental.
A mania however, tulips or dotcom stocks or bitcoin, look different. They have increasing peaks with valleys ("bear traps") inbetween, and each peak looks like a heavenly spire thrusting toward the sky in comparison with earlier ones. They are jagged, as they aren't ruled by fundamentals or logic, but by emotion - greed and fear.
A valuation chart that exhibits the symptoms of a mania is, on the other hand, an aggregate effect of human psychology (greed) spiraling out of control.
I object on that one too. Maybe $1000/BTC seems high because you don't see any interest in Bitcoin (as you have explained thoroughly, or I didn't get your point maybe). There are serious scenarios to consider that could lead Bitcoin to collapse entirely. But I am pretty convinced that, as much unrelated and incomparable you may say there are, there are also serious scenarios to consider that could lead the global financial system as we know it to collapse, at least to some extent, if not entirely.
I believe the UN currently estimates the online population to be about 2 billion. If only half of them want to have $1000 worth of Bitcoin tomorrow, that would mean a market cap of 1000 billion, i.e. about 83.300 USD / BTC, i.e. almost 100 times the current price. Put on that scale, $1000 / BTC seems more than sustainable in the short term and reasonable at this stage of adoption.
And USD 83.330 USD / BTC would not even be the "end of it", as BTC is deflationary and USD inflationary, it could theoretically rise forever.
I'm not saying there's no bubble, I'm saying the long-term evolution might not be the "final burst" that you obviously expect.
If we assume that bitcoin WILL be widely adopted as a currency...
Actually, we'd have to sum the bitcoin "GDP", that is the size of the bitcoin-based real economy, and compare the money supply to that in order to get a proper valuation.
As the current size of the bitcoin-based real economy is rather small, and is in fact seriously suffering from price volatility (you can no longer determine prices in bitcoins - you need to determine them in USD, and use the hourly exchange rate), those numbers are pure science fiction at this point.
And yes, the USD is being deliberately debased - though, that doesn't quite affect its fitness as a currency. It does affect its fitness as a store of value, but nobody ever thought that the greenback was a store of value (I hope).
Bitcoin on the other hand has no intrinsic value, nor the status of legal tender. It's based solely on trust, much of which currently stems from an oldschool media fad. And fads have a tendency to fade...
Bitcoin on the other hand has no intrinsic value, nor the status of legal tender. It's based solely on trust, much of which currently stems from an oldschool media fad. And fads have a tendency to fade...
I would rather say that you deny intrinsic value to Bitcoin, because you don't believe in Bitcoin. It's totally understandable and there are many reasons to think like you do. On the other hand, many other people, like me, believe in Bitcoin, and therefore see intrinsic value in it.
What I mean is the following: Bitcoin has IMO no more or less intrinsic value than any other "paper" currency, in my understanding of intrinsic (i.e. from the thing itself, be it the bank note, the ones and zeros in computers, etc.). Maybe you are confusing value (short) and intrinsic value?
It's only about the trust you give in the backer, be it the state or the Bitcoin system, or rather what those you will want to deal with will trust ;-)
From Wikipedia: In finance, intrinsic value refers to the actual value of a company or stock determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value. It is also frequently called fundamental value. It is ordinarily calculated by summing the future income generated by the asset, and discounting it to the present value.
Bitcoin generates no income, and as such, does not have intrinsic value by definition. It has a market value, that is based on people who are willing to accept it in exchange for goods or fiat currency (as of today, more fiat currency than goods).
True, I do not believe in bitcoin. I am not an antagonist however, I see it as a possibility. There are things that seem worrying, especially the current media hype surrounding it, and the apparent connection between price and (social) media attention.
Also, currently it seems to be a fad to glorify deflationary systems. Studying the history of US finance might dispel at least some of the halo from that school of thought. Deflationary systems punish those who borrow and invest in real production capacity (like machinery or farmland), and reward those who hoard money and lend it out. It can be (and has extensively been) argued to be the most antisocial monetary system conceivable.
(Honestly, if Bitcoin mining speed was constant as opposed to decreasing, and the potential money supply over infinite time unlimited, I'd have better hopes for it as a currency. Of course it would be a far inferior get-rich-quick scheme.
) 
It's two very different things.
