I don't care about what Wikipedia says in this regard and either way it is clearly a discussion of semantics.
I love how you do not even read your own article...Seriously this forum is filled with quite many fools which is sad for such a complex and interesting new idea.
"money without intrinsic value.[9][10]"
I don't know, one of those links to Yale and the other to the guy running Harvards Economic department.
Maybe you don't consider those universities? Homeschooling is the best university!
I am really trying to hard to be polite here but this is absurd. DO not throw stones in a glass house.
Worry not about offending me, My ego is not fragile, If I ever feel I am incorrect in my assertions I change my beliefs and acknowledge the fact that I was wrong or not fully understanding. But I am 100% sure that fiat money is not a scheme beneficial to the majority.
By your argument, gold would also be fiat, (its industrial uses aside). Yet clearly we see central banks expending much effort to collect and store it, you might ask yourself why? if fiat is so good.
Clearly the banking system realises fiat is fragile and they need a safety net for when the shit hits the fan, otherwise please explain why such a barbaric relic as gold is coveted by them, I'm all ears. If their fiat was so good surely they would not care for gold.
Bitcoin is very close to gold, from an information perspective it is superior, not requiring armoured cars to transport en masse.
It is my opinion that Bitcoin does have intrinsic value. It having some very unique and attractive properties.
Are you aware of the national debt of countries using fiat? Do you realise there is NO way to reverse this trend under the fiat model?
Anyway, you are welcome to your opinion.