Two of the main arguments against bitcoin I've read are.

1) Bitcoin transactions are slow.
2) Bitcoin is electricity intensive, inefficient and wasteful.

I never understood how bitcoin was supposedly slow in contrast to traditional banking methods of moving money when bitcoin transfers might take 2-3 hours tops. Bank wire transfers could take 2-3 days tops. Bitcoin already seems much faster than wire transfers. I don't know if its fair for bitcoin to receive so much criticism in terms of transaction time.

The electricity issue is also non crucial. Many nations have an electricity surplus. Especially with advances in solar and wind energy the cost and availability of electricity seem to be improving worldwide, possibly to a degree which nullifies criticism against bitcoin's power consumption.

In the USA some states have such a high surplus of available electricity that they no longer offer payments to those who install grid tied solar panels on their home as the available pool of electricity is already too high. With that much surplus of electricity the argument against bitcoins high electricity consumption seems null and void.

I'm not certain it is fair to compare bitcoin and gold. Some claim bitcoin is worthless and fiat, with no intrinsic value. Although I wonder sometimes if the same analysis could be made of gold. Could it be said that gold is merely a strange type of yellow metal with no more intrinsic value than any other type of metal? The value people place on things like gems, precious metals and crypto could be sentimentally based to some degree.

I don't know if bitcoin is gold 2.0. But it might be fair to say btc is the next evolution of money & as mammals evolved and thrived making other life forms obsolete and extinct, so perhaps bitcoin might represent a superior evolution which eventually phases out currency dinosaurs like the euro and dollar.