but no matter how you view it, it is wasting real resources in order to create a virtual one that has no intrinsic value, only a speculated one.
There's some truth in what you write but I'll try to change your mind
You're right that it is "using electricity". You're also right that there's lot of speculation around. But it is not for something that would have no intrinsic value.
Bitcoin allows to do several things that do each have intrisic value. I'll give a few examples.
Decentralized trusted timestamp have intrisic value. There are people putting cryptographic hashes in the blockchain, typically by using the SHA-256 of the file they want to prove existed a time t as the 256 bit integer defining the elliptic curve of their wallet (they then simply do a tiny transaction to one of the public address of that wallet). As long as we consider SHA-256 to be safe (but any other cryptographic has could be used instead), no government can ever contest that decentralized trusted timestamp: you can't seize server, you can't destroy the evidence. There are millions of copies of the blockchain in the world and should Bitcoin die tomorrow, those past timestamp would still be safe. That's the beauty of that decentralized "append-only" blockchain which has millions and millions of copies around the world.
For example:
http://www.proofofexistence.com/Being able to send bitcoins from, say, Europe to Asia in a matter of minutes has intrisic values. Sure, it's ultra-volatile as of now due to speculation. But it doesn't change the fact that being able to send bitcoins across the whole world in a matter of minutes has intrinsic value.
Being unable to revert a transaction can pose several problems but it also has intrisic value. There are now startups out there like Bitpay and Coinbase ($25 m in VC funding) which allows merchants to accept payments in Bitcoin with much lower fees than other means of payments. Chargebacks on small transactions can kill a business. Transactions in Bitcoins are, by default, non-reversible (but of course you can still build, upon this, any scheme you want, like trusted 3rd parties holding bitcoins etc.) and I admit that this is a two-edged sword. But you can't deny that in many cases non-reversible transactions offer many benefits. Even "bank transfer", like SEPA transfers in Europe, can in some circumstances be reverted up until a few days after you got the money. This is a major problem.
By the way CoinBase / Bitpay do allow instant payments in Bitcoin but without being exposed to the risk inherent to price volatility: the merchants are paid in USD, at the USD price they want. Simply the bitcoins are immediately bought/sold at the current market rate.
You cannot say that being able to accept near-instant non-reversible payments from the entire world, directly converted in USD with much lower fees than traditional method, doesn't have lots of value. Just try the simulator here, under pricing (scrolling down a bit):
https://bitpay.com/pricingThe decentralized "append-only" blockchain may also permit other things which we haven't discovered yet.
Now regarding the ethical aspect and electricity consumption... Apparently this corresponds to powering 30 000 houses worldwide. I'd say this is not much on a planet which has, what, 8 billions people?
How do you feel about people collecting keyboards and keycaps which required oil to be produced? What about companies which are producing keycaps "just for fun" (like skulls / retro sets / etc.) and people driving to these factories? And the shipping costs and pollution associated with all the FedEx and USPS shipping of our stuff? What's the "intrinsic value" of collecting retro keycaps sets? And the time when you're computer is on, spent on a forum about input devices when you could have your computer turned off instead and be meditating instead?
Should we begin to judge any behavior which is not strictly mandatory simply because it requires energy?
And what about the real environmental issues like the tens --if not hundreds of millions of homes-- having the air conditioning set on too low a temperature in too many rooms? Shouldn't we focus on these issues first?
I don't know how the Bitcoin experiment will end up but I see it as much more than something simply "wasting electricity".
And even if something even "more useful" comes up later, like, say, a protein folding cryptocurrency or primecoin or whatever, bitcoin will still be remembered as the one who showed the way.