Yes, I read it, I'm just disagreeing with your characterization of it. Value comes from two things: need and perception of value. Things that are not needs are not inherently valuable, and then value only comes from the perception that someone else will find value in it in the future. People like gold because it has value. Gold has value because people like it. Confidence in gold at this point is more tradition than anything else. You're saying that confidence in systems can't be compared to each other because the systems are different. That's not true at all. The systems can be radically different (like gold and bitcoin), and the value of each system still comes down to the confidence in the particular instrument. You can say that gold will always be valuable and cite its history as evidence and likely be right. That doesn't make it absolute, and the determining factor is always going to be whether or not people have confidence in the store of value.
Confidence in gold is based on inborn feelings and instincts (which are fixed and universal), while confidence in Bitcoin is purely rational and based on functions attributed to it (which can be called off). Without them it is useless. In this way it is no different from any other fiat money out there, as I said previously. Gold, on the other hand, is loved for what it
is, in and of itself, not for what people set it to
do. You are bringing forth concepts which are irrelevant to the question and trying to challenge what I have already at first made clear and then set aside as irrelevant...
Namely, the origin of value, subjective vs objective