It's just a ledger, an honest, limited ledger. Why is it so valuable? Why is gold so valuable? Like gold, Bitcoin is a 'valuable rarity' (and not a currency, at least not currently). The rarity is due to Bitcoin's assurance through mathematics and game theory of its **limited supply** and **absolute honesty** (absolutely true). What else in this world has such a property? There can be many, such as gold, antiques, Van Gogh's paintings... But first, the 'authenticity' of these items requires high costs for verification; antiques and paintings can be faked, and identifying their authenticity requires professionals, training a qualified professional incurs very high costs, and the process is highly uncontrollable. Most critically, professionals can also lie, establishing trust in a particular professional is also costly. The authenticity of gold is relatively easy to verify, but today, for most ordinary people, there is no need to authenticate gold, nor do they even need to bring gold home; they can just hold paper gold, which is all based on trust in today's credit system (ultimately trust in the government). Satoshi Nakamoto clearly does not trust the government and believes that the government's unrestrained credit expansion is dishonest. In this respect, both gold and Bitcoin are inflation-resistant assets.
As for why they are valuable. Why is gold, antiques, and Van Gogh's paintings valuable? If you believe something has value, then it has value. The more people who share that belief, the more valuable it becomes. The Terracotta Army is just a clay figurine; its value comes from the fact that some people (at least most Chinese) believe it carries ancient Chinese culture. Through the Terracotta Army, we can understand the technological level, aesthetics, military, etc., of the Qin Dynasty, and they believe ancient Chinese culture is valuable. I am certainly among them. The reason I use such an objective expression is to remind readers that not everyone believes ancient Chinese culture is valuable. A complete illiterate or someone with a strong aversion to China might not think so. Similarly, appreciating Van Gogh's paintings also has thresholds. 'Value' reflects 'values,' and values can vary greatly. Different people hold different values, but some values are held by the majority, such as the idea that trade is good because trade better satisfies human desires (the most basic, fundamental value). Gold made trade easier (in the past, gold served as a world currency), so gold attracted the most consensus and became immensely valuable. Compared to this consensus, gold's practical value (precision instruments, decoration) is trivial. (There are more exciting discussions [here](https://vijayboyapati.medium.com/the-bullish-case-for-bitcoin-6ecc8bdecc1).)
An absolutely honest ledger can also serve as a Schelling point for value. With the improvement of infrastructure (the approval of Bitcoin ETFs, the promotion of cryptocurrency apps, etc.), Bitcoin will be accepted by more and more people. Although understanding Bitcoin has a very high threshold, this is not a problem in the long run; most people do not understand Van Gogh's paintings either.
So will Bitcoin gather a greater consensus than gold (with more people believing that gold is valuable)? I believe it will. The consensus around gold was established in the age of barter, and finding such a Schelling point worldwide is not easy; the strong inertia of human concepts keeps gold as the most important store of value today. However, people who grew up in the internet age will find it easier to embrace Bitcoin as 'digital gold,' and human technological progress is exponential. Today, we have even reached the brink of a technological singularity; it is difficult to predict what beliefs future humans will hold. They may completely abandon gold in favor of Bitcoin.
