Now, really think deep about this.  Suppose that most adoption of bitcoin comes from people thinking like that (which is probably the case).  That means that Joe is only to go and buy bitcoin, if he expects it to rise in price.  By doing so, he made it rise in price: someone who bought it at a lower price is going to sell it to him, right ?  So Joe is counting, essentially, on finding Bill, who will also buy it from him at a higher price, right ?   (that's what it means "increasing in value": finding people willing to buy it at a higher price than the one you bought it at").  Etc....

In this game, people come to bitcoin, because they think they will end up finding someone who will buy it at a higher price.  It is called "a greater-fool game".  You are a greater fool than the one you're buying from, and you do this because you think you will find a still greater fool.

Now, this has a fundamental problem to it: there's only a finite number of fools on the planet.  What is going to happen when the last layer of fools sees that there's not a "layer after them" ?

If the main motive of acquiring an asset is that you think you will be able to sell it at a higher price than you buy it, and if there is no other value-generating mechanism, this is the very definition of a greater-fool game, a bubble.  These are the mechanisms behind speculative bubbles, pyramid games and Ponzi schemes.   Which doesn't mean that you cannot make a lot of money from it when you're in and especially out in time.  All gain in such a system is financed by the "last layer of fools".  So simply don't be part of the last layer.


At least, with lettucecoin, you will get groceries

In any case, a single block chain cannot scale to the level of all transactions for all vegetables in the world.  The idea that Sven, in Sweden, must acquire, and process, the buying of a salad by Joe in Australia 7 years ago in order for Sven to be able to process his monetary asset to be able to buy some petrol for his car, is simply crazy.