"Actually", if you would have read Adam Smith, you would understand why rxantos said money is supposed to represent effort. Instead, you went on your rant about the psychology of money, making almost no argument.
And by the way, before you go on and tell me how much you hate Adam Smith for being the father of capitalism, and that you don't care about what he wrote, know that what he wrote was grossly misinterpreted. Smith was a teacher of moral philosophy before an economist.
The value of 'fiat' money - ie not backed by physical wealth (eg gold or similar) is backed only by the reputation of the issuers (ultimately governments via their central banks). It's this that reassures those holding the currency that the value of their money will be honoured by the sellers of goods they want to buy. Governments can devalue the currency (Bernanke's bond purchase; Bank of England 'quantitative easing') but no-one doubts that their money will become absolutely worthless. (The Euro is another story - I don't now hold any!)
But who the h**l is backing the value of the Bitcoin? Sure, it has gone up like a rocket - but so did the price of tulip bulbs in 17C Holland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania). Eventually you may find that your bitcoin (or tulip bulb) is just worth a pretty flower.
But I might buy Bertcoins - I would trust Dogbert absolutely!
I don't understand how some people talk about Bitcoin replacing the dollar as the main currency. They will only be a limited supply of bitcoins produced, and when no more of them are made, people will naturally tend to hoard them instead of spending them. It's like these people actually want to make a currency bubble.