There is a need to have a medium of exchange for trade. Barter has its limitations. For all of history, people have created new forms of money for exchange. The primary characteristics you would need is scarcity, clear ownership, transferability and fungibility. Gold serves this purpose, and Bitcoin even more so.
The fact that gold is a shiny pebble is not adding anything meaningful to the conversation.
The characteristics you need for a medium of exchange are:
- fungibility.
- the ability to hold its value for exactly as long as you need to hold onto it. Any longer than that is a non-goal.
- stability/predictibility.
- the ability to adjust to shocks, and a changing population.
- low cost of transactibility.
Scarcity is a non-goal. Clear ownership is a non-goal except in as much as possession is 9/10th of the law.
Basically none of these apply to gold, and basically none of these apply to bitcoin. That's why nobody uses it as such.
Our fiat money has been around since the 1970s with staggering blowups
Come back to me on 2500 years and we'll see who has the better track record.
For instance, I think it's fair to say e-mail is a success, even though the first postal system was established under Cryus the Great in 550 BCE in Persia. The first e-mail was sent in 1971. Are you saying we won't be able to declare victory on e-mail until the year 4492?
Not the parent's argument, but TECHNICALLY speaking Gold as a shiny pebble can be used for jewelry, wiring, etc. It TECHNICALLY has utility.
Bitcoin has no inherent utility. ETH (and derivatives) on the other hand can power a smart contract which actual real business value, but the fact that it has a currency associated to it is generally meaningless.