To act as a store of value, these forms must be able to be saved and retrieved at a later time, and be predictably useful when retrieved. WIKI
It's funny you quoted the WIKI, but scroll down and on that same page you see "digital currency, e.g. Bitcoin" listed as an alternative store of value...
Now what would happen, if in future nobody would accept my gold as payment for goods and services. Well, I could make jewelry out of it and wear that jewelry or I could decorate my house with it.
What happens when nobody accepts my BTCs? Well, I could do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with my BTCs in this case. So already we see, that bitcoin actually has enormous counterparty risk, as it is only worth what somebody is willing to pay for it. If nobody wants my BTCs I am left with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (i.e. bitcoin).
In either case you would lose most of your wealth stored in the medium. The difference seems to be subjective, you feel that your Gold is more likely to be worth something down the road than bitcoin. This can absolutely contribute to your choices of medium to store your wealth in but doesn't make one money and one not. There is no fundamental difference other than your comfort in chances for loss of price moving into the future. There are events of varying probabilities that could render either worthless. To say one is money, because it passes some arbitrary threshold of likely odds (of your choosing apparently) to remain desired by others that the other doesn't, seems silly to me.
Now obviously I want to have a high degree of certainty, that somebody will want to exchange my store of value with other valuable things, as otherwise I would have an excess of one resource, that I would be stuck with.
What is golds guarantee in this regard? Well, it says: I am beautiful, people have loved my look since dawn of man, and have thus always been willing to accept me as payment for other valuable goods and services. Thats REAL backing.
What is
BTC guarantee in this regard? Well it says: I am worth nothing, but people have agreed to exchange me for something, because they want to save transaction costs, and because they like exchanging me peer to peer (no third party or bank). Now without reading futher how convincing does that sound to you (pretend like you have never heard of
BTC, or that
BTC has collapsed in price)? Lets continue:
In future people might not accept nothing for something. In future they might switch to a different coin, that is technologically superior (thus my wealth is stored in myspace and suddenly facebook comes along). In future the transaction costs might explode due to prohibitive regulation, so that the artificial agreement to exchange something for nothing collapses. In future, maybe people will prefer real backing over backed by nothing, especially if real backing can be transferred electronically (digital gold). In future people might think that it was crazy to accept nothing as payment, just to safe on transaction costs. In future there might be reputable trustees, and people might regain trust with third parties. In future maybe people decide that instant payment is not that important to them, as money is fungible. In future people might realize that bitcoin is not anonymous and that it is not internet or gold 2.0. Bitcoin might stay highly volatile
as the believe in an artificial agreement (with huge counterpary risk) is extremly volatile.
Now from my perspective the situation is even worse: Right now people are ONLY accepting nothing for something, because they strongly believe that nothing will go up in price (after all it has been going up in price in the past, so it must be true for the future

). Eventually some early adopter will want to cash out, and if there is nobody there to take his position, the price will fall through the floor.
So I believe, that bitcoin because it does not have value, cant be relied upon as a store of value. It is entirely dependent on the counterparty honoring an pseudo agreement. So bitcoin actually has enormous counterparty risk. Gold is a great store of value, as people will always accept it because it is beautiful. It is burnt into our brain. It has no counterparty risk, because the counterparty cant help but love and accept it (like with food and water).
Thus intrinsic value is ESSENTIAL for one of moneys core functions: store of value. Money value cant be seperated from intrinsic value, as it is DEPENDENT on it.
2) Medium of exchange
Same arguments apply. Right now people exchange something for nothing, due to an artificial pseudo agreement (transaction costs, peer to peer if you ask bitcoiners). I believe its even worse: Right now people ONLY accept it because it is going up in price. As soon as it crashes, people will stop accepting it, as it is irrational to agree to exchange something of utility for something of no utility in order to save transaction costs.
All this really only seems to speak to
your comfort level in respect to the future of Gold vs Bitcoin. Go far enough and maybe we mine asteroids and Gold goes out of vogue, so it's no longer scarce and nobody wants it for jewelry. Does that mean Gold is nothing because there are potential futures where it is no longer desired and therefore no longer traded?
You've made a great case for why Gold is the safer investment. It has a long history and has some properties that makes it less likely to go to 0. I don't see anything that demonstrates either Gold or Bitcoin is "nothing" or that Bitcoin can't be money.