[4fterd4rk]

That's circular logic on the gold/silver. You basically say gold/silver holds value because it holds value. Bitcoin and other crypto is really no more illogical than precious metals. Precious metals have a few relatively minor uses for industrial applications but really they're valuable because we've all agreed they're valuable, no different than Bitcoin.

[acdha]

The difference is that bitcoin is the purest form of fiat currency: it has no value beyond social consensus — nobody has aesthetic or industrial uses for random hash digests — whereas silver and gold have innate value. Even though precious metal prices are higher than could be supported based on industrial / jewelry demand alone, that provides a floor which Bitcoin simply does not have.

[ecshafer]

Gold/Silver tend to increase in price when cash loses value, and drops when cash gains value. I am not saying I believe they are inherently valuable, but there is some kind of cause and effect that is displayed in the market. I can find no cause and effect in bitcoin.

[jfengel]

It's no more illogical, but it's also not much less illogical. Either is an unforgeable, limited token of arbitrary value.

Being digital, Bitcoin has some nice properties that precious metals don't, but we stopped using precious metals as the foundation of the economy decades ago. The idea remains popular with a certain set of ideologues who want to make their cash holdings the basis of the financial system, but that's much too inflexible to run a modern economy.

Economists overwhelmingly believe that they need currency control to manage irrational market speculation. Technologists frequently cite a small number of economists who disagree, and while truth is not a democracy, but it's wise to be suspicious when one's choice of experts just happens to affirm the things that benefit you personally.

tl;dr: There could be a place for blockchain, but BTC is based on a bunch of self-imagined revolutionaries who don't know how to manage an economy.