“Bitcoin has no physical form and therefore no subjective or objective use.”

I don’t understand how you draw the conclusion that because #Bitcoin is not material, it doesn’t have a subjective and objective use. First, I would challenge the premise that Bitcoin has no physical parts. Bitcoin couldn’t exist without the infrastructure hosting its ledger. Maybe the physical components guaranteeing the existence of Bitcoin are distributed but Bitcoin isn’t fully immaterial. Second, even assuming that Bitcoin doesn’t match the definition of “being material”, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have a utility. By this reasoning you could make the case that software because it’s not physical has no utility which is obviously false. 

 What can you do with Bitcoins? Are they good to eat? Perhaps you can melt them down and make useful tools? 

 Save, trade, create multisig contracts... If people can see the value potential (even before the network effect exists) then you can bootstrap a market valuation. That is literally what bitcoin has already proved.

But all value is a function of knowledge & therefore subjective. If no one knows what a thing can be used for then it is basically worthless. 

 It’s an uncensorable, unonfiscatable digital medium of exchange with a highly liquid market. Not everyone will value this utility but this is the core utility of #Bitcoin. 

 Sounds great, how much will 10 kilograms cost me?