Oleg Andreev writes about Bitcoin, trustless contracts, crypto-anarchy, deflation and his own software projects.
Commenters link his posts on enforcing contracts without identity or third parties, and his arguments about Bitcoin's use value.
Gold's use value is much, much lower than the current price reflects. Most of the price of gold is explained by its reservation demand - i.e., monetary demand, both by individuals and central banks.
And you're incorrect that bitcoin has no "intrisic value". As this author explains:
http://blog.oleganza.com/post/42262765318/direct-use-value-of-bitcoin
------
Bitcoin network has very interesting properties that allow you to use it not only as a currency. For example, the block chain (decentralized transaction history) is designed to be extremely hard to forge and very easy to verify. This, with some crypto features, allows it to be used for secure time-stamping, proving ownership of tangible property, decentralized DNS and new ways to sign contracts without having to fully trust any one party. Some of these things are already possible using existing software, some require already planned and compatible modifications.
--------
There are a great many things that are now possible with the creation of bitcoin and the solving of the Byzantine Generals' problem that were previously impossible. If that's not "intrinsic value" then nothing is.
Like it was said in some comment below, there is no shortage of ideas of how a society would work in the absence of government. Yet people mostly ignore them and ask the same questions again and again, not even willing to hear the answer. I recommend reading Murray Rothbard, David D. Friedman and Stefan Molyneux.
And I would like to answer one of your questions specifically: "How would they enforce contracts arising therefrom without a legal system" by pointing you to an Bitcoin-related idea by a friend of mine: http://blog.oleganza.com/post/58240549599/contracts-without-trust-or-third-parties
>>BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions.
What does that sound like? Maybe an earlier top post on HN http://blog.oleganza.com/post/71410377996/crypto-anarchy-does-not-require-anonymity
To enforce contract you do not always need identity. Identity is needed when enforcement is through violence. But you can use economic incentives to make people prefer following the contract.
http://blog.oleganza.com/post/71410377996/real-crypto-anarchy-without-anonymity
http://blog.oleganza.com/post/58240549599/contracts-without-trust-or-third-parties
I think you're talking about NASHX http://nashx.com/HowItWorks and the trustless version documented by Oleg Andreev http://blog.oleganza.com/post/58240549599/contracts-without-trust-or-third-parties
(I mentioned the former in my post, but I didn't realize NASHX was acting as a trusted 3rd party)
This story’s link is to the general Gitbox blog. The actual post with that title is at http://blog.oleganza.com/post/13630966174/gitbox-is-1-year-old-status-report.