If people value something, it has value; if people do not value something, it does not have value; and there is no intrinsic about it.
I think this is an oversimplification... he even mentions in the article himself - gold has value because of its physical properties. It's not valuable
only because we give it value. Gold is valuable because it is useful and we need the material for many real-life applications.
If something can be used for a purpose other than exchanging it for something else, then it has intrinsic value. In the case of bitcoin, it doesn't have intrinsic value. I do agree that this doesn't make it less valuable, but it means that its value could potentially fall to zero if people lost trust, whereas this would be impossible with gold or silver because they are needed in various industries. I guess you could still say that gold and silver are valuable only because we give them value, but the reason we give them value is because of their uses as substances, whereas with bitcoin we give value because of trust. Trust can disappear, but intrinsic usefulness can't. I think that this is the most important difference.