His theory holds that Bitcoin, or any other modern currency, does not need to posses a direct-use value in order to become a currency.

How can there be any direct use-value for a currency that was designed to function as a currency and nothing more?

How can there be any direct use-value for a currency that was designed to function as a currency and nothing more?

How can Bitcoin have a direct use-value if it was not made of any physical materials that could have been used as consumption or production goods?

The use value (also known as value-in-use) is the value to one particular user.

A commodity is a use-value object of utility, and a 'value'.

A commodity is a use-value or object of utility, and a ‘value’.

Subjective use-value is not always based on true objective use-value.

Besides its use-value as a particular form of concrete labour it assumes a general use-value.

In addition to its particular use-value as an individual commodity it acquires a universal use-value.

that’s the exchange-value and that’s the use-value?

that's the exchange-value and that's the use-value?

The one may be called “value in use”; the other, “value in exchange.

The one may be called "value in use"; the other, "value in exchange.

One is ‘use-value’ and the other ‘exchange value’.