How's quantum computer can actually destroy Bitcoin or blockchain lmao? They are vastly two different products. One is a public ledger, and other is technology. Even though, what you are saying makes little sense, but you are referring to a future which is many many decades after of. So, it doesn't matter at all with respect to today. If needed, Bitcoin will also get replaced by something better in future.
Also, aren't you being contradictory when you say that there will be a calamity when all internet and phones and everything will be destroyed, but at the same time land, fiat will remain still? Lmao. When internet, phones and everything gets destroyed, so gets destroyed land, money and even human species.
"How's quantum computer can actually destroy Bitcoin or blockchain lmao?" - Seriously?.. I assume you having a Full Member rank here do understand how DLT works, and what are the potential effects of new type of computing, such as quantum can have on it. As for the decades in order for such technology to come into effect, please do check the latest news from IBM, Google, and the Chinese firms' developments in this area. It's gonna be within our lifetime when we will see actual quantum computers in work (maybe not in your pocket like a phone yet), and then you could tell me what is the effect

But don't forget, people in 40s-50s also were saying that thousands of years will pass before everyone in the world could have a personal portable computer at home... Less than 100 years passed and you have it in your pocket to check IG, TW, etc.
I am not sure how you see the connection between the destruction of tech, and land at the same time. But I guess we just have different understand of the potential situation which was described.
You actually are absolutely right. I don't know if that was sarcasm or what but I feel air and water might also get listed soon on Commodities exchanges if the scarcity of both so remains and increases. I Mean if you see the commodities exchange something very basic which started like a utility like power too is being traded on exchanges so what's the problem with air and water? Once we reach a time where you have to pay for it you might see Air and water derivatives getting listed on exchanges for sure. But yes talking about Bitcoin obviously you are right that we might see quantum computers which could end bitcoin but are you going to hold your cryptos for so long? I mean let's be pretty honest. No one plans to hold it for the next 30-40 years what I am trying to say is that if something has value and demand which is likely to sustain until next 5-7 years there is no harm in speculating on such a thing for time less than that.
Nope, I wasn't sarcastic at all. Because as you probably know - there are already futures on water
https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us-index/nasdaq-veles-california-water-futures.html And yes, with such development: "securitized energy" -> "securitized line of code" -> "securitized water" -> "securitized air" could well be the next step
(btw we securitize value - entirely new concept (not self-promotion)). Actually, we, internally had a concept long-time ago about new financial products that could emerge in the future also, and actually as you mentioned - scarcity and global demand & essential need for this "asset" can be good characteristics for the potential securitization. So if you want to predict what might come next, you could take a look at Maslow's Pyramid and try to imagine what constitutes different levels of the pyramid (water, air, food, are parts Psychological Needs for example, and almost all have been securitized by now) you could potentially predict what might be securitized next. But as for
BTC you are absolutely right. Most of the people won't hold it for that long, no matter how loud they scream that they will HODL it forever. Being a human creates, even if they buy
BTC today @ around $23,000, they will be happily screaming and selling if/when
BTC reaches $100k or $1m. So yes, for sure there's no harm in speculating such things, same as with Tulips in 1637
