I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).
You're complicating what should be a simple issue. Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties. You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever. Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances. Not so in others. Same applies to credit cards, and so on.
Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"?
Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering.
And what exactly is bitcoin 'backed' by? Coins and fiat are backed by physical governments and militia. People can protest and throw rocks at politicians when shtf. You can't throw rocks online at miners maintaining the blockchains, or rogue exchange owners known only by internet screennames.
Are you assuming the masses will just put all their 'faith' into a non-reversible, non transparent system backed by anonymous neckbeards should the world crumble?
Sounds legit.
You make the same mistake I did before I learned economics. Bitcoin is not backed by anything - just like gold isn't. They are each valued for their individual characteristics and utility. Humans impute value - there is no such thing as "intrinsic" or "inherent" value.
Perhaps bad wording on my part, as 'intrinsic value' has such a broad range of interpretation.
I'll say 'utilitarian value.' Even if gold's market value crashes to 0, it still won't be completely useless, as it can still be utilized in industrial/economic/decorative situations.
Now what usefulness would bitcoin present if its market value goes to nil?
But that is not the argument you brought forth. Your original proposition is that money must be backed by something when in fact money valued for its characteristics and properties as store-of-value, currency and unit of account.
Gold's "industrial" value is irrelevant to this discussion.
We shall have to agree to disagree. If you think people will put their blind faith into a system that presents just as much chaos and corruption/if not more than the current fiat system (and thus a sesspool for hackers and scammers galore)...then I hope it pans out for you. It is pretty much the furthest thing from a safe haven in my eyes. Matter of fact it's basically antonymous.