Most asset classes look like that, though. Gold has some intrinsic value as a good conductor/reflector of heat. But it's not really so very much superior to aluminium or copper or whatever to make it worth what it is worth. It is expensive because it is scarce. That's it. Bitcoin is the same. (They are obviously very different in other ways, but you get the point.) Things don't need to have intrinsic value to be valuable. They simply need to be desired by the market.

I agree with you - I actually implicitly meant everything you said.

The crux of the matter lies with your last sentence: "They simply need to be desired by the market"

Ergo, the quality of an asset as a "store of value" (the point of contention I was addressing in my comment) is directly mapped to the desire. BTC's desire is insanely volatile, automatically making it a poor store of value.

My point is precisely that all assets used as currency are oftentimes intrinsically worthless. It's the demand - and the liquidity it provides converting to and fro said currency from other goods or currencies - that makes it a value storage vehicle. BTC, as a "value storage vehicle," is a very poor choice. Gold isn't.

Gold isn't even in the same realm of volatility as BC, though. You put money in Gold and you're pretty sure if the world burns it's still worth something. You put money in BC at breakfast and you may be a pauper by lunch.