critique:  Like tulip-bulbs hundreds of years ago, Bitcoin is a retail mania, and it will collapse.

rebuttal:  Bitcoin has experienced four major cycles of massive 1000%+ appreciation, followed by deep drawdowns of more than 80%. Each cycle has started from a much higher price than the previous one. This is not a characteristic of one-time manias. Bitcoin's price, as well as fundamental adoption numbers, are increasing dramatically over multi-year timeframes.

It is a common refrain from people ignorant of both bitcoin, as well the dutch tulip bubble, to refer to bitcoin as "tulips". The tulip bubble was a one-time event, lasting a couple months at manic prices, and affecting relatively few people. Bitcoin, by sharp contrast, is exhibiting growth characteristics - both in price and adoption metrics - similar to an increasingly dominant tech company or protocol.

Another thrust of this argument centers around the fact that bitcoin has no cash flow (like bonds) or expected cash flow (like stocks), and that therefore it's worthless, or at least massively overvalued. This is essentially the same as the "no intrinsic value" critique, as it ignores fundamental properties that humans demand and therefore assign value.