Look, here's the thing. For something to have real, actual value, it must not only have a fixed quantity but it must have some practical, real world application or purpose as well. It must fulfil some need.
Gold is not just a shiny metal that someone picked out of the ground and decided was valuable one day. It has always had some real world application and it has more applications today than ever before, and that is why it's valuable.
Fixed, limited quantity + Purpose/Application = Value as a commodity or resource
Wood is valuable despite there being so much of it and despite its being a renewable resource because its applications are so many. It's valuable, but not very. (Just had wood delivered for the stove, relatively cheap too, so that's why I'm thinking of it.)
Gold and oil are not renewable and there's a fixed amount of each. They have numerous applications and that makes gold and oil more valuable than, say, wood.
My point is that even when something is plentiful it can still have value when its applications are so many. But it doesn't work in reverse. Just because something is so few in quantity does not make it valuable without it fulfilling some need.
That part of the equation is quite crucial, and Bitcoin falls into neither category. It's not plentiful but extraordinarily useful and it's not limited and useful either. It has no intrinsic value as a resource, commodity, or currency. There's no need for it. The guy who joked that he's never heard anyone say "if only banks were decentralized" struck at the heart of it, really. He's right.
Look, I hope everyone makes a lot of money from Bitcoin. I really do. I've got friends raving every day about how much money they're making, and I'm happy for them. (I'll be even happier for them when they cash out.) But it's just an experiment. That's all it is. It's a speculative "currency" with no real application and no intrinsic value as anything else at this point. That's not good.