The WSJournal article says if BTC is to change dollar, its current value is 0. Plus the ways of possible transactions with BTC is very limited and it requires spending lots of energy (who can explain the part with the energy spending?).
On the other hand if in future BTC would depend on gold, its value will be stable and it won't be opened to any fluctuations at all.
What do you guys think about that?
that Wall Street Journal article never said these things. you just made a conclusion that was the last thing that article was meant to say. the article was mostly attacking bitcoin and saying it is useless and a waste of energy. the author of that article did not even understand how bitcoin works. which means the article did not worth even wasting your time to read.
and also i should add, just because other things depend on something (like them depending on Gold) does not mean that is the only way things can have value. the real value comes from supply and demand. and the demand for bitcoin is there and that means it has value. the value being above $3000 each and rising with the rising demand.