[2019-01-05] Twitter User Relates Owning 1 Bitcoin [BTC] To Having 700 Acres

[BTCNN]

A recent tweet by Francis Pouliot have made the rounds and gotten almost everyone’s attention in the crypto community. In the tweet, Pouliot equates owning a bitcoin to owning 700 acres of landed property.

"Owning 1 Bitcoin is the equivalent, in scarcity terms, of owning 700 acres of land.— Francis Pouliot 🐂 (@francispouliot_) 1 June 2019"

Frances Pouliot is one of those contributing positively to see bitcoin gaining its most desired adoption. Pouliot is the CEO and co-founder of Bull Bitcoin, a Canadian-based firm. The firm claims to be Canadian’s alternative to Coinbase and Bitpay.

https://www.btcnn.com/opinion/twitter-user-relates-owning-1-bitcoin-btc-to-having-700-acres-of-land/

[CryptoBry]

Being the founder of Bull Bitcoin, I am not wondering why Francis Pouliot is very optimistic of its future value. I mean it comes in his territory naturally. But then, who knows, years from now bitcoin can really be that valuable due to the scarcity that he is talking about. When more and more people can be acquiring bitcoin, the price could shoot up into the sky. However, we also know that bitcoin can be very volatile and it can pullback significantly in just a matter of hours (just like what is happening now timestamped June 04, 2019).

[BLAST2MARS]

Hype, Hype and Hype. Any people that owns a company or founder related to bitcoin or altcoins should be expected to drop crazy speculations like that.  We are still stuck on the major problem on how we will succeed on the mass adoption but people don't take that seriously and just continue to hype the market value of the coins.

[bbc.reporter]

I shake my head. There will never be a good explanation for his valuation. The market, where bitcoin gets its value can be manipulated. Is he implying that he knows for certain that bitcoin will be manipulated to 700 acres for 1 bitcoin or is he using moon math?

[joniboini]

We are still stuck on the major problem on how we will succeed on the mass adoption but people don't take that seriously and just continue to hype the market value of the coins.

It's quite understandable as most people only think about price, so anything that can boost the price of crypto to go up is important, though I personally doubt that hyping things could be successful after we see the last bear market. If people still fall for hype without substance, then it's their own problems.

What this CEO said (regardless whether it's true or not) is not necessarily wrong, in short, he just wants to point out that Bitcoin is scarce in nature. Problem is, sometimes it will be narrated as if anyone should have it because it's scarce. Scarcity is important but focusing only on that aspect is also misleading.

[shamc]

Scarcity plays a big part of in the future price of bitcoin. There is only 21 million bitcoins with 1m locked by Satoshi and millions more being carelessly lost forever. This comparison is a good one

[BitHodler]

Scarcity plays a big part of in the future price of bitcoin. There is only 21 million bitcoins with 1m locked by Satoshi and millions more being carelessly lost forever. This comparison is a good one

I think the comparison is subjective and for that reason doesn't really makes sense. Bitcoin, regardless of where you are or what currency you use to acquire it, has the same level of scarcity basically for ever, to anyone.

Another thing is that the location of the land is very important in terms of valuation. 700 acres of land in one country can be 100-1000x cheaper or more expensive in another country. It doesn't have one overall valuation like Bitcoin.

The most important difference in my opinion is the fact that you can actually own your Bitcoins, while with land the government can claim it and you're left with nothing. Bitcoin is an entirely different asset.

[bbc.reporter]

Scarcity plays a big part of in the future price of bitcoin. There is only 21 million bitcoins with 1m locked by Satoshi and millions more being carelessly lost forever. This comparison is a good one

Can scarcity apply to software? Bitcoin can be forked many times and the code can be copied to create new coins. It might be that bitcoin is similar to fiat where its value is determined from the trust of the people who uses it.

[jseverson]

Can scarcity apply to software? Bitcoin can be forked many times and the code can be copied to create new coins. It might be that bitcoin is similar to fiat where its value is determined from the trust of the people who uses it.

Each BTC isn't really just software anymore though, much like fiat isn't just paper. Even if there were identical forks, people won't consider them as Bitcoin. Trust certainly plays a big part (maybe biggest, even) in valuation, but scarcity does too.

I think the comparison is subjective and for that reason doesn't really makes sense.

I think arbitrary is the word you're looking for. It probably would have made much more sense if they divided the total land area of the world by 21 million to highlight that there's only ever going to be this much, regardless of value. I really thought it was a statement about scarcity rather than their own valuation.

[davis196]

A recent tweet by Francis Pouliot have made the rounds and gotten almost everyone’s attention in the crypto community. In the tweet, Pouliot equates owning a bitcoin to owning 700 acres of landed property.

"Owning 1 Bitcoin is the equivalent, in scarcity terms, of owning 700 acres of land.— Francis Pouliot 🐂 (@francispouliot_) 1 June 2019"

Frances Pouliot is one of those contributing positively to see bitcoin gaining its most desired adoption. Pouliot is the CEO and co-founder of Bull Bitcoin, a Canadian-based firm. The firm claims to be Canadian’s alternative to Coinbase and Bitpay.

https://www.btcnn.com/opinion/twitter-user-relates-owning-1-bitcoin-btc-to-having-700-acres-of-land/

The price of land can vary a lot depending on different factors,such as location,quality,surrounding infrastructure,market demand for land in that particular country,etc.
I would say this is a pretty bad comparison.

[bbc.reporter]

@jseverson. Agreed. However, the argument is not about what the holders consider as bitcoin but if cryptocoins are scarce. Bitcoin can fork again and holders will also have access to the forked coins to sell or to hold.

I reckon if his argument is owning 1 bitcoin relates to 700 acres of land then maybe owning 1 bitcoin cash relates to owning 10 acres of land that would have been 710 acres of land if the fork did not occur.