Random arguments against BTC:
* Why not Monero? Litecoin? Bitcoin cash? What makes BTC so special?
* Why is a public ledger with zero privacy good? With metals you can make private transactions. Two people making an exchange is none of the government's business. On the flipside, I believe all government expenses should be tracked on a public ledger to keep them accountable to the public, so there's that.
* BTC can be vaporized if you lose your private keys. Poof, gone. How is this a good thing? They say BTC is more finite than gold but never mention how BTC can be deleted from existence.
* BTC network is so slow you have to put it on a lightning network. So, why is the token valuable? Isn't the token supposed to reflect the value of the network? But if the network is dogshit what does that say about the token?
* BTC is hoarded by the major banks like BlackRock and Fidelity and so on. While gold confiscation is a risk, BTC confiscation would be much easier to pull off: the major banks would just hand over all the keys to the government instaneously. No force or exchange of lead required.
* BTC has never survived a single prolonged economic depression or recession (born during the era of infinite QE). It has not survived a single hyperinflationary event, collapse of civilization, major solar flare event, etc.
* 99% of crypto is an obvious scam. So why not 100%.
* BTC has no intrinsic value, which means it has no value besides as speculative money. The second a superior money is invented, BTC goes to zero.
* What about zero day exploits? Quantum computer beating cryptographic security? Gold is unaffected by all of this.
* Worst of all, crypto and BTC are shilled by celebrities, banks, governments, Presidents (Trump pushing his TRUMP coin), Plebbit, and on and on and on. Meanwhile silver and gold are either ignored or laughed at. Says everything.