Why is it problematic to view Bitcoin as ‘internet gold’ or a store of value, rather than as a legitimate currency?

There’s a consistent argument in certain critical circles that scaling Bitcoin as a true currency system will be challenging, primarily due to transaction costs. This criticism seems to carry some weight.

Conversely, many supporters in various forums argue that Bitcoin’s infinite divisibility and growing adoption will eventually make it a viable currency, potentially replacing traditional fiat money. This perspective relies heavily on Bitcoin’s increasing usability and acceptance in the mainstream market.

Additionally, there’s a viewpoint that considers Bitcoin as a form of global digital gold. Given its finite supply and the interconnected nature of the internet and the Internet of Things, it’s seen by some as a hedge against inflation or a straightforward investment option. [Full disclosure, I lean significantly towards this viewpoint, while also appreciating the peer-to-peer aspect. My perspective is heavily influenced by a libertarian view of decentralized currency being the ultimate goal.]

I’m raising this topic to initiate a discussion: Why is it problematic to see Bitcoin primarily as a store of value or an investment? Does this view contradict Bitcoin’s original vision as a decentralized, peer-to-peer currency system? Or has Bitcoin’s role evolved over time?

I’m aware that purists advocate for Bitcoin’s original purpose as a decentralized medium for peer-to-peer transactions. However, I’m interested in exploring whether the diverse perspectives on Bitcoin’s purpose and reasons for ownership really affect its overall narrative and future.

Is there also concern about the potential for significant divergences or splits in the Bitcoin network, similar to past events in its history?

Thank you for your insights. I’m well-researched on the topic and am looking for a meaningful discussion beyond the typical speculative hype often seen in discussions about Bitcoin’s future value.