Well, you say popularity, but I am not even sure if it would be very accurate to describe bitcoin as popular, even if it might be "popular" within some segments of society, and even if it seems to get quite a bit of press in recent times in light of it still being a baby in terms of the level of adoption. 

Sure, we have some BIG players who hold a lot of bitcoin, but still overall, I doubt that there is any convincing evidence that bitcoin is experiencing overall adoption levels of greater than 1% of the world's population having exposure to it.. and at the same time, if we consider companies, there are some BIG players talking BIGGEDly about bitcoin, but their ongoing "BiG" talk on the topic does not really seem to reflect in bitcoin's numbers - including but not limited to price... so it seems very questionable in regards to how much actual bitcoin that some of the BIG talkers have.. whether Blackrock and various persons and institutions associated with that and maybe some of the other BIG players who likely do not even have very much exposure to directly owning bitcoin, otherwise it seems that the BTC prices should be reflecting those kinds of acquisition dynamics... so anyhow, my point is to question the use of the term to describe bitcoin as "popular."


You make several valid points to differentiate bitcoin and property, but it seems that you are getting caught upon somewhat narrow definitions of property in order to make your points to contrast bitcoin from certain kinds of physical property.. and sure.. no problem with some of that.

At the same time, there are a lot of people making various comparisons of bitcoin to property, including that there are legal definitions that seem to hinge upon bitcoin as a kind of digital property.. and Michael Saylor frequently makes similar kinds of points that rely on descriptions of bitcoin as a kind of property.

Your overall points still do seem to be valid in terms of making some investment decisions that might include concerns about some of the disadvantages of having to maintain physical property and other ways that physical property is likely vulnerable to being taken from you or even being used against you, and even if bitcoin might not be completely removed from those kinds of threats, the digital attributes of bitcoin does cause the attacks upon it to require different tools and maybe even more challenges for the attacker to be successful in terms of removing you from your coins.


You are probably correct overall BigBos, but it still seems problematic to place too much confidence in some of the kinds of storage practices that might be newer and less scrutinized, and of course, there likely is more security in terms of the wallets that are more open source and reviewed, and to the extent that it is not open source, then there might be trust that is placed in the software vendor to not have back doors.

We would almost have to go wallet by wallet (which surely is not the topic of this thread and there are quite a few other forum threads that do go into those kinds of discussions) if we were to want to get into discussions regarding how secure the wallets are and what some of their vulnerabilities might be that go beyond merely users making mistakes...even though users making mistakes can also be a decently BIG factor.


You do not seem to be contradicting that bitcoin may well be more powerful than gold in a variety of ways that have already been listed and you also listed some of the ways....

It seems that you need to be careful regarding the suggestion that bitcoin is super-easy to keep in your own custody and to make sure that you do not screw something up or that you end up storing your bitcoin with software (or hardware) that has security flaws that were not known to you and perhaps not even known to the public at large when they end up getting exploited.

Another thing is that over the years even some of the storage systems have changed, and there is ongoing developments to change ways that coins are stored, and likely some of those developments will make improvements, but some of the developments also might have security trade offs or even sometimes unknown security holes.


Even if you might otherwise be making some valid points, it seems to be going out on a tangent to get too far into those kinds of outrageously BIG numbers, and I doubt that people with that level of capital are participating in threads like this.. or even that people who might be engaging in threads like this should be our attempted audience.. even though surely everyone might have to adjust the numbers to their own situation.

so yeah, maybe we might say poor would be those people who are struggling to figure out how much disposable income they have, but if we might be getting into BIGGER numbers, then we could still use $10 million as the top of our range rather than $100 million.. but more practically, we likely have people struggling to get up to $100k worth of value accumulation, yet we know that people who have been in bitcoin might have had invested less than $10k in the last 10 years.. maybe even as late as 2015 and pretty easily gotten to millionaire status... just to flesh that out, $10k / $250 = 40 BTC  and at today's prices 40 BTC would be worth right around $1.16 million.

Ok.. let me try to work with your $100million number and maybe round it down to $10 million or $1million.

I doubt that diversification allows you to make greater returns, even though it might make profits if some of the assets are invested into items that are growing well... It would likely not make any sense to invest equally into 50 assets, but maybe for the sake of the hypothetical, there could be $2million invested in each asset, but if all (except a handful) of the assets just performed at the normal market rate (6% to 12%), then the outperforming assets would have to really outshine the others in order to make up for the difference in order to get 30% overall return, and again, I doubt that diversification gives you greater returns but instead is an attempt to preserve principle.. and to be conservative and to not be too aggressive, so the more diversification that you have, the more likelihood that even if you have stellar performers, you are going to have low performers that offset them, even though we know sometimes that everything is going up at the same time, but some things are going up more and somethings are going up less.


Oh gawd.. the more you explain, the worse it gets... even though I do like that you are using something like $10k as a kind of example of how much value that a pleb might have to work with,

but I probably would like it even better if you describe income too.. because a normie/pleb might have $10k at one snap shot in time, and maybe your thinking about it as a snapshot value gets you to try to figure out whether to use all of it to buy bitcoin right now, or what are the various bitcoin price dipping points that you would want to deploy such cash (presuming that it is all available right now)..

so if we are assuming no other investments, and we are presuming that the money is completely available for bitcoin, we still might need to figure out some aspect of what is the anticipated cashflow in the next 6 months?  and even that it is important to know what is the annual income?  Is it $10k or is it $20k or is it $30k?  or some other amount?

At some point, the amount invested may well justify some needs to start to diversify into other investments, even though the greedy lil bastard pleb is focusing on "getting rich quick" right?

Anyhow, is any more money coming in that might be available for bitcoin, or maybe you are presuming that the income stream for this particular pleb/normie is irrelevant because that income stream merely goes towards living expenses and the normie/pleb is just going to otherwise be living his life in the normie/pleb ways because he has already decided that he was ONLY going to be allocating $10k to bitcoin... and yeah a bit vague, but still I can somewhat work with you on it, including our agreement that it is just a matter of starting out with bitcoin, and then figuring out at what point the investment into bitcoin might start to reach a value in which some diversification might start to be justified, and if the $10k invested into bitcoin starts to grow, and maybe does a 3x (which would be $90k per BTC) or maybe a 10x (which would be $300k per BTC), then there might be some point that the person might want to start to diversify, which may or may not mean that selling coins would be the best option, but it might just mean that new cash is used to invest into other things other than bitcoin, since the bitcoin stash seems to be doing sufficiently well, even if maybe overall it is continuing to ongoingly fluctuate in value quite a bit.


Surely, I agree with this point that you made Wind_FURY.