> Either both bitcoin and gold has intrinsic value in economical terms or none of them have in philosophical terms
The argument is precisely that gold has, and bitcoin hasn't, intrinsic value (in the economic sense).
Gold can fulfil the functions of money, but also has other uses. Bitcoin can fulfil some functions of money (barely), but has no other uses.
Bitcoin also have other uses such as store of value (just like gold) and a unique footprint which makes it useful in the digital space.
So no it's not wrong at all.
There was a time when gold wasn't useful for much other than as a store of value and as jewelry. If we are to follow your own argument then Gold had no intrinsic value because of it's limited use before the industrial revolution.
Only the market determines whether something have value. The idea of intrinsic value in anything (also when used in economic terms) is simply misleading and not representing reality but rather the illusion of a reality that doesn't exist.
Gold can loose it's value completely.