Value is subjective. A subject is a self-preservation machine (cells, organisms, collectives, etc.) capable of resisting the effects of entropy by expending energy externally. Only subjects can ascribe value to something.

Energy has value to all subjects because subjects need energy to continue existing in spite of entropy.

Subjects engage in activities that produce energy for themselves. By producing energy, subjects contribute to increasing entropy, which consequently requires more energy to resist in the future.

Subjects must maintain a surplus of energy. They must create more than they consume.

Storing energy is valuable.

Living cells store energy in lipids - fatty compounds that cells can "burn" later for energy.

Organisms store energy in food reserves - by keeping food reserves, organisms can later convert the food to energy for their cells.

Collectives store energy in money - by keeping records of energy creation vs consumption, collectives can efficiently produce and allocate energy to/from the comprising organisms.

Humans are the only known collectives that use things which aren't food as money. (Although monkeys have been successfully trained to use coins to trade for food and sex)

Collectives usually have huge long-term aspirations (like building a city or going to the moon). These require tons of energy and may take decades. Food storage is not sufficient at storing this much energy for years at a time.

Anything can be used as money.

Its up to the collective to decide what is money. The money does not store the energy like fats or food. Rather the energy is "stored" as an IOU by the collective.

By spending money, you are demanding that others in the collective burn energy for you. By earning money, you expend energy to gain more energy (in the form of money).

A good money will keep accurate records of energy expended. A good money will be equally "hard" to acquire no matter which organism is competing to acquire it.

A worse money will become 'elastic' causing the collective's record of energy expended to become inaccurate to reality. A worse money is easier to acquire for some and harder for others. Not because some organisms can expend more energy than others, but because the money rewards them unfairly (Cantillon Effect).

In theory, the best money will become the most adopted by collectives.

A money that is adopted by a larger collective is more valuable than a money adopted by a smaller collective. "Large" and "small" here refers to the energy production of the collective, not necessarily the number of organisms.

A popular money can be exchanged for more energy and thus the money itself is more valuable.

Because the market values all the features you listed.

I like @grayruby's answer but the solving of the double spend problem isn't in your list. That backed by proof of work mining allow for digital scarcity. Digital scarcity is an innovation because the digital world's biggest feature is also a big problem. The ability to copy things at almost no cost. This is why the idea of intellectual property is functionally dead.

I would definitely say "all of the above" or at least "most of the above" so selected "other" ... 😉

true value for value

All above + the proof of work and the cheap tx verification (unlike golds verification which is costly)

Mainly because people believe that it does

Demand

It's all of the above and more, dudes... Can't participate in this one.

I think Bitcoin has value because of us hodlers. We appreciate its properties Bitcoin fix our financial system

I like that my money belong to me

I voted for unlimited supply but its value is actually the combination of all of the possible answers

Because there is demand for it.

Limited supply helps, but unlimited supply with a cost to mining it that more gets costly over time would still lead to value.

There is limited supply for a lot of things that don't have value.