Here's a hilarious article from Forbes with same tittle: Is Bitcoin Going To Zero? What makes it particularly hilarious is the author's striking inability to understand that to make a consistent and coherent argument he has to tie up loose ends in his logic and reasoning

At first, he claims that Bitcoin is effectively dead as it has no value because it "doesn't produce any products or services". And then, all of a sudden, he proceeds to assert that Bitcoin's characteristics such as "a store of value that easily crosses borders around the globe" and "the comfort of anonymity it can provide" have only persisted because governments have largely allowed cryptocurrencies to exist

Am I the only one who feels like the author makes mutually exclusive claims in this piece of shit? If Bitcoin is in fact as dead as a doornail, it can't possibly possess all these benefits and advantages he mentions, and so no government intervention is actually required to get away with it. But if, nevertheless, the government intervention is still required to get done with Bitcoin, it doesn't look like being dead at all, right?

In short, haters gonna hate. Bitcoin is money but money itself doesn't produce any products or services on its own. Does that take anything from its value as long as it is not fiat hyperinflated (when it basically stops being money)? Essentially, as money Bitcoin produces transactional utility upon which things like a store of value or "comfort of anonymity" are built. Thus, this argument doesn't hold even when taken separately, on its own "merits"