> The problem with Bitcoin though is it isn't a currency.
You mean it isn't a fiat currency. All that means is that Bitcoin's value isn't backed by a government, but is instead derived purely from the ability for someone to spend it.
> If it was a currency, if $1 USD was paid for a Bitcoin, that USD would be destroyed, not pocketed.
What? Since when? If you spend USD to buy EUR, the person on the other side of the transaction is giving you EUR and pocketing the USD. No value is destroyed.
Bitcoin still doesn't fit the definition of currency on its own. The fact that Bitcoin has a value is more because of speculation. People early on mined it and therefore own larger amounts for relatively little effort or cost. Now it's worth more and they have reason to perpetuate its growth. Investors now have joined gamble and speculating by putting in $100s of millions of real cash in hopes they can help stabilize it and make their current Bitcoin worth 10x to 100x more just by getting more people to adopt it. There are some people who accept Bitcoin in exchange for services, and more accepting it for goods, however it's those base Bitcoins that were mined that are the problem.
Re: USD for EUR - As you mentioned above those are at set rates between fiat currencies, and therefore there is practical reasons for the currency having a value. Bitcoin's value is mostly dependant on demand, which is being pumped up and perpetuated by investors and those with vested interest in the ecosystem including those who own Bitcoin and larger amounts of Bitcoin - who all want the value to go up 10x - 100x.
Lots of places take Bitcoin as a method of payment--therefore, it's a currency. Sure, its exchange rate is volatile due to speculation, and its future is relatively unknown right now, but that doesn't mean it's not a currency at all. Bitcoin has real value as a form of digital cash, and lots of people are using it that way.
> Bitcoin's value is mostly dependant on demand, which is being pumped up and perpetuated by investors and those with vested interest in the ecosystem including those who own Bitcoin and larger amounts of Bitcoin - who all want the value to go up 10x - 100x.
You're absolutely right: since Bitcoins aren't backed by anything real, their value is purely based on demand. But I disagree with the notion that speculation is the only reason they have any demand. Plenty of people are using Bitcoin in the real world, e.g. to make purchases anonymously or to easily send money overseas.
In real economics, the word "fiat" simply means "not backed". So Bitcoin is "fiat", and to a considerably greater degree than governments (who can declare a currency legal tender in a given geographical area).
The special Bitcoin usage of "fiat" stems from goldbug pamphlets from a century ago. But it is a misuse of the word.
You mean it isn't a fiat currency. All that means is that Bitcoin's value isn't backed by a government, but is instead derived purely from the ability for someone to spend it.
> If it was a currency, if $1 USD was paid for a Bitcoin, that USD would be destroyed, not pocketed.
What? Since when? If you spend USD to buy EUR, the person on the other side of the transaction is giving you EUR and pocketing the USD. No value is destroyed.