I listened a 3 hour Peter Shiff debate on Gold vs Bitcoin, here's what I got from it

Peter Schiff:

Gold has an actual value because of its real-world usage. And because of scarcity, of course, but that's a secondary trait. It has to be combined with the real-world usage and the chemical properties of gold in order for it to have any actual intrinsic value.

My remarks: Only 11% of the annually produced gold is used for industrial purposes, mostly in electronics. While it's good and useful, it's not irreplaceable. /edit, upon further research it seems that it's actually irreplaceable lol/.

The other produced gold is used in jewelry and bought by banks/institutions as an asset/currency.

Usage in jewelry can't be classified as something super useful. It's mostly because it's expensive and a well-known metal. Yes, it doesn't rust and ages well, but again it's not irreplaceable. The main point is that its value as jewelry comes mostly because people believe in it and have believed in it for ages, which in itself is a self-fulfilling prophecy and has the Ponzi/pyramid social effects as well.

Peter Schiff:

Bitcoin, while being scarce, doesn't have any value because it's digital and doesn't have any real-world application whatsoever. Its price goes up only because of the Ponzi/pyramid social effect, i.e., speculation and buying, because of the belief that other people will buy.

Thus, eventually, after 100 years, gold will still be around and prevail and keep a high price, while Bitcoin will mostly be forgotten or become dirt cheap because things that don't have actual value don't have a future as a monetary asset.

My remarks: While Bitcoin doesn't have industrial purposes/jewelry usage and doesn't have chemical properties, and you can't touch it with your hands, it does bring another type of value, a value that can't be physically seen with your eyes.
Scarcity aside, it has divisibility, portability, transparency of the blockchain, and security of the blockchain.

While gold's intrinsic value is rooted in its physical attributes, Bitcoin's value comes from its innovative technology, digitalization, security, and its potential to reshape financial systems.

It does have more of an abstract intrinsic value, but that's more of a philosophical debate, depending on the exact definitions and also if a physical intrinsic value is a 100% necessary condition for something to have the established value of gold and survive for decades/centuries.

I think Peter Shiff's entire argument in every single podcast is around Gold's intrinsic value vs Bitcoin absolute lack of intrinsic value. He mentions quite often the industrial usage of gold, it's chemical properties and its usage in jewelry. And then he adds that Bitcoin has none of these, which should automatically mean that the value of Bitcoin is zero, or it will be zero given enough time like 100-150 years, while Gold is 99% sure to prevail due to its intrinsic value. What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?

What do you guys think about this discussion ? Any extra opinions, arguments, or counter-arguments for both sides are welcome.

Bonus /ChatGPT's contribution to the debate/

To challenge Schiff’s argument, you could point to historical instances where non-physical assets have maintained or increased in value over time. For example, intellectual property, brand value, and digital platforms like social media have intrinsic value based on their network effects and user base, despite lacking physical form.