Yes, and for many other reasons, rooted in the fact that especially since BTC is not really used as a currency, the effort is de-facto wasted and that we should likely be putting the energy to better use.
You know the about the Pacific Island, similar to Easter Island, that depleted all of their resources building massive stone heads?
This is most likely a myth...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/new-evidence-easter-...
https://www.archaeology.org/news/1649-131216-easter-island-n...
How much sugar a BTC buys you on the long term is anybody's guess.
You've very well illustrated the fundamental problem with Bitcoin: it's thought of as a technology, when really it's a financial instrument.
The 'storage' you've described is mechanical, technological - and has nothing to do with the concept of a financial store of value.
A good financial 'store of value' is somewhere you can park some money, and know that you can go back in 50 years (or some time frame) and it will still have value. Hopefully a little more.
BTC is extremely volatile, and because it's not backed by anything - it could go to 0 tomorrow. Probably not - but it could.
Think: will BTC be around in 100 years? Heck, in 10 years?
Maybe.
Will real-estate in London be worth at least something in 100 years? Almost assuredly.
Real-estate is generally a very good store of value though obviously it depends upon which regime that real-estate sits.
BTC is a very interesting thing, but it's not really a currency, and not really a store of value ... so then what is it?
And you will have big costs maintaining that particular store of value (taxes, maintenance, ...)
Bitcoin storage will cost you zero. And yes, it could be worthless in two years.
Ahh - but we can 'guess' - and given how we know the world works, there is a very high likelihood that London property will have value, and probably more than it does today.
BTC - there's a decent chance it could be worthless.
Though BTC does own the 'upper end of value spectrum' - i.e. investing in BTC could make you 1000x richer in 100 years - and London property will never do that - BTC also owns the lower end of the spectrum, i.e. with a range of probabilities at zero, or near zero. Meaning - not a very good store of value.
In fact - as a 'store of value' BTC can't even be remotely considered when there are so many better options.
Speculation? Sure. BTC is might be a good bet actually. Store of value? Bad bet.
With one small caveat: the world is in turmoil at the moment (as usual, more than usual, not sure?), with big events hitting the economy worldwide: climate change, AI, self-driving cars, automation, ... you name it.
What is the chance of any one of those events to nuke your "London Real State in 100 years" strategy? Low. The combined chance of all those forces? Not so low.
What is the chance that real state in London will be wiped out (as a store of value) and bitcoin will not, in 100 years? The balance is tipped on the side of London, but not so much as you would think.
Interesting times ...
BTC can be stolen (have been stolen) and depend of the existence of a complex network of computers and the faith of thousands of people.
The value of everything depends on complex interactions, and a dose of faith.