but creighto, at least you'll have your guns, ammo, and silver to disinfect your milk.

just recall that 'if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is'.

those of us who aren't teenagers have seen this kind of thing dozens of times before, each time with claims that the speculation is based on something fundamentally new. i make no predictions about the price of bitcoins, as today's price results solely from what game theorists call a beauty-contest game, but 'confidence' in the most optimistic of results isn't warranted.

perspective isn't hard to acquire here, but it's always elusive. you can find quotations almost exactly the same as the original post in this discussion littered through history. would it help anyone if i found some?

borrowing in support of speculation is, additionally, almost always irrational because of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. if bitcoins end up worth $1,000, it won't really matter whether you have 3000 or 5000 of them. (as someone with money, that's all too real a truth. like most people who've made money, i continue to seek it out of what, if i were honest, i'd have to admit was a quirky habit, rather than a need or a belief that i can do something better with it than others.) on the other hand, the interest on the $36000 debt you'd incur to buy an additional 2000 bitcoins today, which debt would grow to $240,000 in 20 years at 10% interest, could make the difference between solvency and bankruptcy for you.

going 'whole hog', to borrow an american phrase, is almost never a good investment strategy. diversification is almost always better, particularly when bankruptcy is a real risk. (incidentally, what does an honest libertarian do when facing legal bankruptcy, which is of course basically a protection against legitimate debt offered by a welfare state? does he or she decline the legal protection because it results from 'force'?)