Bitcoin an opportunity like land

[TheUltraElite]

Total amount of land is limited but we have built artificial cities in the past too. It can somewhat be compared to the limited supply nature of bitcoin and thus a deflationary supply and thus a increased long term value.

Some amount of real estate is essential to survive, you do need a house to live in. Additional real estates are assets and they can grow in big numbers if run properly. Some people rent these out for a monthly income, others allow the price to inflate and then sell at profit.

Even then it is much easier to collect bitcoin and hold it.

[ancafe]

Its better for your regret to be not buying more than for it been not buying at all.

How's the price of land in your country?
Have you ever thought been in the time where land was cheap and bought alot?
Are you boarding the train(cheap) of Bitcoin holders or you want to wait for private jets?

Both have good features in the future because if we look at current developments, we can conclude that the future with these two investment methods has great potential. Land has shown rapid progress in terms of selling prices and land prices are increasing day by day. In the past, our parents often bought land at prices that could be said to be quite cheap, until now, if we sell the land, we will make a profit ten times the basic purchase price. The potential for land is actually much better because more and more developments are being made every day and land prices are soaring.

Likewise with bitcoin and if you look at it from its inception until now there has been rapid progress regarding its selling price, so making bitcoin one of the best investments ever. I prefer both simultaneously if I have the opportunity because I think both have great potential in the future to generate maximum profits.

[snowpega]

Talking about you having money and making an investment in it, buying of lands are the traditional old ways of making an investment being risky and yet profitable, you can choose to buy land and someone take it from you or government, you will need your personal information before acquiring land, but with bitcoin, you can be more profitable if invested and you will be under nobody before choosing what to do with your asset, if land could be profitable with investment, then know this that bitcoin is more profitable on that, it's an asset and a digital currency decentralized.

well dear, How can someone take your land from you? Yes it is a separate thing if some gangsters take your land under their possession or if the government takes your land under some laws or regulations and on the other hand your land is totally under your possession.

The second point you emphasize very well the idea of Bitcoin gives it more power due to its decentralized digital currency. It can be more beneficial if someone has accumulated the bitcoin at good prices. In current time when btc is going to make its new all time high so it can be proven a good opportunity for them who really trsut in its positive potiential.

[Fatunad]

How's the price of land in your country?
Have you ever thought been in the time where land was cheap and bought alot?
Are you boarding the train(cheap) of Bitcoin holders or you want to wait for private jets?

#It appreciates when it comes to value
#Of course, but the main issue or in concern with this one is that buying land or properties doesnt really come cheap. This is why we would really be just simply sitting
and see those opportunity to pass by.
#Purchasing land and purchasing crypto is different which it would really be that pretty obvious on what are their main differences.

Doesnt matter on which one as long you do able to get that opportunity then it would really be just that right that you should really be that focusing into that
and wont really be tending yourself to be missing out those opportunities.

[goldkingcoiner]

Bitcoin is a bit like land yes. Very valuable and supply capped. Though the supply cap on Bitcoin is of course total, and therefore much more limited than the cap on land

I probably would not make that comparison. Nobody really owns land. Your government merely "allows" you to rent a part of land, but they can take it away at any time, if they needed to. Same goes for countries which get invaded during wars. That land belongs to the invaders now.

But with Bitcoin, it only belongs to you. And as long as you do not do something silly like give your wallet keys/coins to a scammer, you will be fine.That being said, the most common problem is getting tricked into giving your bitcoin and/or your wallet to some shady figure, later on. The coins in your wallet are only as safe as the person holding them.

Also, Bitcoin not only becomes capped, but some wallets are lost forever. So the amount of Bitcoin in existence truly diminishes.

[Z_MBFM]

Both are good investment, if you have both then you're lucky.

It is true that land as a property is such a good investment, however, the tax you're going to pay per month or per year is also a pain in the ass if you don't put anything in your land, like raising livestock on it or plants fruits and vegetables to generate more profits. Here in my country, land that are near the roads pitch much higher prices than those who are in a very high places like in farms near the forest.

While Bitcoin, if you bought some and hold for long term, it is all about waiting game until you hit the price where you're contented about selling it, no hassle at all. Though each of them has their own advantages, so either of them is a good investment in short.

Yes both are very good investment assets so whoever has more faith in that thing can invest in it. But in this digital juggernaut, those who avoid Bitcoin will fall far behind.  Land is a common thing and is necessary for living and more or less almost everyone owns land either by purchase or inheritance. But to own bitcoins one must buy bitcoins. And just as land depends on its security on legal documents, Bitcoin's security depends on its wallet key. Both are very profitable so one can invest in anything as per their wish. But I agree that he would be much luckier if he could invest in both

[puloweh555]

Its better for your regret to be not buying more than for it been not buying at all.

How's the price of land in your country?
Have you ever thought been in the time where land was cheap and bought alot?
Are you boarding the train(cheap) of Bitcoin holders or you want to wait for private jets?

Both have good features in the future because if we look at current developments, we can conclude that the future with these two investment methods has great potential. Land has shown rapid progress in terms of selling prices and land prices are increasing day by day. In the past, our parents often bought land at prices that could be said to be quite cheap, until now, if we sell the land, we will make a profit ten times the basic purchase price. The potential for land is actually much better because more and more developments are being made every day and land prices are soaring.

Likewise with bitcoin and if you look at it from its inception until now there has been rapid progress regarding its selling price, so making bitcoin one of the best investments ever. I prefer both simultaneously if I have the opportunity because I think both have great potential in the future to generate maximum profits.

Both of these investments have their own advantages and disadvantages and indeed if you have more funds you can invest in both. However, not everyone can invest in land because land must have large funds before you can invest. This is different from Bitcoin, you can invest any amount using the DCA method.

As much as I like Bitcoin, I don't think this is a fair comparison. But if the land is empty, it is just a pseudo investment and more of a luxury item. If the land has a second house, that means there will be maintenance costs and so on. after all you don't actually own the land or house. The government or whatever authority there is in the country is just realistically lending it to you. Your country is attacked, does something the government doesn't like, war, etc. Goodbye land and house. It's different if you invest in bitcoin, if you still have access to bitcoin and you have the keys then your assets are safe. this was the first time the average person could truly own assets that could not be forfeited even though the world was in chaos.

[The Cryptovator]

I don't like comparing land with bitcoin anyway. Land is a real-life asset that is mandatory for our lives. So we are obligated to own land. But for Bitcoin, a lot of the population still doesn't know about it. In that scenario, it doesn't make sense to compare Bitcoin with land. I know both have an investment opportunity, but land prices always increase and are not volatile. Bitcoin is highly risky and highly volatile. So these assets are separate from each other.

[boty]

I don't like comparing land with bitcoin anyway. Land is a real-life asset that is mandatory for our lives. So we are obligated to own land. But for Bitcoin, a lot of the population still doesn't know about it. In that scenario, it doesn't make sense to compare Bitcoin with land. I know both have an investment opportunity, but land prices always increase and are not volatile. Bitcoin is highly risky and highly volatile. So these assets are separate from each other.

It's true what you said, these two things do have very profitable value when investing and everyone will try to be able to have these two things if their financial condition can meet the needs they need because these two things are very valuable. If we compare land and Bitcoin, of course these two things are very different even though both have investment value which is very popular with many people and I agree as you say that the price of land will continue to increase and I have never found a selling price for land that is very different from the price. Bitcoin whose price fluctuates and cannot be predicted by anyone.

[Su-asa]

I don't like comparing land with bitcoin anyway. Land is a real-life asset that is mandatory for our lives. So we are obligated to own land. But for Bitcoin, a lot of the population still doesn't know about it. In that scenario, it doesn't make sense to compare Bitcoin with land. I know both have an investment opportunity, but land prices always increase and are not volatile. Bitcoin is highly risky and highly volatile. So these assets are separate from each other.

However, comparing the both might not be that bad as they are both valuable the only difference is that one is physical assets and the other is an online asset that have a higher risk.
Bitcoin is not like land when it comes to price, Bitcoin can get higher than land in any moment (in an hour, minutes or seconds) but talking about land, it might take more years for it to be very valuable.
Some of the things that can make land to beore expensive that bitcoin is only when the land has a crude oil on it or other matters that are very valuable in the society, and with that even the government of your state or country might want to acquire it for them self, outside this land can not just wake up one morning and get higher in it price.
Bitcoin is rising and it is also risky for one who's not educated about it, there are investors who are not well educated enough about Bitcoin and the investment, they think Bitcoin is a get rich quick scheme so they sometimes end up losing everything that they have and sometimes they risky what they can not afford to lose, and that's wrong.

[Bitstar_coin]

Yeah buying btc gives similar feelings and opportunity as buying a landed property.
Just as landed properly keeps increasing in value so is btc. 1 BTC use to cost way less than what it cost today and so is landed property.
The reason why I think btc is a more better choice is the fact that one can buy a fraction of btc, and a small amount of it unlike a piece of land.
People with limited funds are better of buying btc because it will be more beneficial for them.

[Mame89]

I don't like comparing land with bitcoin anyway. Land is a real-life asset that is mandatory for our lives. So we are obligated to own land. But for Bitcoin, a lot of the population still doesn't know about it. In that scenario, it doesn't make sense to compare Bitcoin with land. I know both have an investment opportunity, but land prices always increase and are not volatile. Bitcoin is highly risky and highly volatile. So these assets are separate from each other.

Yes that's right. Investment between Bitcoin and land is actually equally useful so there is no need to compare because both have their own advantages. I like the way you explain it, land is an asset that we must have in real life because for me the land is a stable metric, not really getting or losing value, it only stores value. But BTC investment for the future even though it is risky because it is very volatile, but we must also have BTC for investment because BTC rises without limits because it is adopted quickly. If I personally, first the house where I can live, after that all my investment money, I will invest in Bitcoin.

[oktana]

But in my conversation, the volatility is in favor of what I am saying. Because the only way we have Bitcoin priced where it is today is the volatility. If you bought a land 13 years ago, and you bought Bitcoin 13 years ago too, which one would you had preferred? Buying a land is valid and I would advise people who have the funds to go into it, but Bitcoin isn’t a wrong investment in comparison to that. Today, Bitcoin investors from back then can buy lands (alongside their owners ). Hehe

Surely, I would have bought BTC if I knew that BTC would grow much faster. But the problem is, that we cannot predict the future. All is just speculation, prediction, and nothing else. I know that Bitcoin may touch 100K USD in 2024 or 2025. But, it could go down to 30K again if whales start selling their Bitcoin. We never know what is going to happen.

$100k within this year and next is not going to happen (my thoughts). Bitcoin isn’t really in that position where it’ll shoot up that fast. I believe in $100k but just not now; maybe the next 5 years? We can’t tell exactly as many factors matters.

Undoubtedly, Bitcoin is a good investment. But, we cannot deny that Gold and land are good investments as well. Still, people always want to be on the safe side which is the reason people still invest in land and Gold.

Everyone has their preference so I can’t decide for anyone, but personally, I prefer land to gold. Maybe because I do not know so much about gold like I know about lands. However, I see many disadvantages of gold that I do not like.

[Onyeeze]

To own a landed property is a decision that marks your territorial advantage. BTC will do well in the nearest future and beyond.

you cannot compare a landed property with a Bitcoin because both of them is different intense of profit so landed property do depreciate and also appreciate in value due to the environment the land is being situated why Bitcoin also decrease also increases so bitcoin increase when the market is of Higher demand and it can make you to be rich at any front of time because of the market is not creditable the market can rise because the demand is high the market can also for because demand is low, why landed property do appreciate because of development so without development land can stay up to 10 years without increment

[decodx]

But in my conversation, the volatility is in favor of what I am saying. Because the only way we have Bitcoin priced where it is today is the volatility. If you bought a land 13 years ago, and you bought Bitcoin 13 years ago too, which one would you had preferred? Buying a land is valid and I would advise people who have the funds to go into it, but Bitcoin isn’t a wrong investment in comparison to that. Today, Bitcoin investors from back then can buy lands (alongside their owners ). Hehe

Surely, I would have bought BTC if I knew that BTC would grow much faster. But the problem is, that we cannot predict the future. All is just speculation, prediction, and nothing else. I know that Bitcoin may touch 100K USD in 2024 or 2025. But, it could go down to 30K again if whales start selling their Bitcoin. We never know what is going to happen.

$100k within this year and next is not going to happen (my thoughts). Bitcoin isn’t really in that position where it’ll shoot up that fast. I believe in $100k but just not now; maybe the next 5 years? We can’t tell exactly as many factors matters.

Bitcoin's shown before that it can shock everyone.  Though $100,000 by the end of the year may be a long shot, it ain't out of the question.  This market's known for rollercoasters, and plenty could line up to jet Bitcoin up in price.

[Crypt0Gore]

Total supply is limited but if we start counting how many buildings are been built in a single country the numbers will be in millions, yet there are lands left that are still bushes or jungles, saying land is limited is nonsense, there are still many lands available,  development is the problem, there are places where you won't find single houses or you don't have undeveloped areas in your country?

Bitcoin max supply is just 21 million, that's all there will ever be, but lands are available everywhere, this can't be compare to bitcoin, come to Africa you will see so many lands filled with bushes and jungles, no one dares to build on them because it's not a developed area.

Drive my people out, they will find a new land somewhere else to live and cultivate, this have happened even in the Bible, this world is massive, so massive than the max supply of Bitcoin, so please let's stop comparing lands with Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is far more smaller than lands in the world, and Bitcoin holds the true value appreciation than lands.

[Shishir99]

$100k within this year and next is not going to happen (my thoughts). Bitcoin isn’t really in that position where it’ll shoot up that fast. I believe in $100k but just not now; maybe the next 5 years? We can’t tell exactly as many factors matters.

If you talk about another five years, we will have another halving in the next five years. I am kind of sure that we will touch $200K after five more years. As you know, the scarcity increases the demand for Bitcoin. So, If the block reward gets divided again, the supply will decrease as well. Moreover, A lot of companies will accept Bitcoin in five years. The number of Bitcoin users will increase as well. More demand, more price. Of course only if satoshi does not come back and does not sell his 1 Million Bitcoin. If something happens like Binance will sell their holdings as well, we may never reach that mark.

Everyone has their preference so I can’t decide for anyone, but personally, I prefer land to gold. Maybe because I do not know so much about gold like I know about lands. However, I see many disadvantages of gold that I do not like.

I do not disagree with you. The size of the land is never going to increase but there are no limits to Gold's supply. Land could be considered as Fixed asset. Gold could be considered too, but not as like the land.

[oktana]

$100k within this year and next is not going to happen (my thoughts). Bitcoin isn’t really in that position where it’ll shoot up that fast. I believe in $100k but just not now; maybe the next 5 years? We can’t tell exactly as many factors matters.

If you talk about another five years, we will have another halving in the next five years. I am kind of sure that we will touch $200K after five more years. As you know, the scarcity increases the demand for Bitcoin. So, If the block reward gets divided again, the supply will decrease as well. Moreover, A lot of companies will accept Bitcoin in five years. The number of Bitcoin users will increase as well. More demand, more price. Of course only if satoshi does not come back and does not sell his 1 Million Bitcoin. If something happens like Binance will sell their holdings as well, we may never reach that mark.

That’s not how it happens. $200k just like that? The halving doesn’t directly bring scarcity but reduces the amount of tokens that are being added to supply. Now, what of the ones that are already in circulation? They are going to always be in circulation. So let’s stop speaking about halving like it’s slashing out what’s in existence. At the end of the day, all 21M Bitcoins will be generated.

[dothebeats]

And the situations between both of these assets are almost the same. Land developers are buying huge plots of land and the available residential plots to buy are getting scarce, and huge financial companies are buying bitcoin making it more expensive for the average Joe to acquire one. Those who managed to buy a few bitcoins a few years back are benefiting from the bulk buying huge companies are doing in bitcoin. It truly is a once in a lifetime opportunity, and I'm lucky to be able to keep some while the prices are still relatively mild compared to what it is right now.

[ancafe]

Both of these investments have their own advantages and disadvantages and indeed if you have more funds you can invest in both. However, not everyone can invest in land because land must have large funds before you can invest. This is different from Bitcoin, you can invest any amount using the DCA method.

You can adjust investment based on your financial capabilities and it is not recommended to use other people's money. Land has long term prospects and if one does not have enough money to buy it then choose investment in bitcoin beforehand. When you get a big profit when investing in Bitcoin, at that time you can allocate money to buy land as a step to prepare for the future.

As much as I like Bitcoin, I don't think this is a fair comparison. But if the land is empty, it is just a pseudo investment and more of a luxury item. If the land has a second house, that means there will be maintenance costs and so on. after all you don't actually own the land or house. The government or whatever authority there is in the country is just realistically lending it to you. Your country is attacked, does something the government doesn't like, war, etc. Goodbye land and house. It's different if you invest in bitcoin, if you still have access to bitcoin and you have the keys then your assets are safe. this was the first time the average person could truly own assets that could not be forfeited even though the world was in chaos.

Why do you call empty land a pseudo investment? Isn't it an asset that is quite valuable in the future and as time goes by the price continues to rise and continues to provide great value for the owner. The comparison you give is also unfair because if we talk in general, Bitcoin is not owned by many people, so this parable cannot be applied equally to people in general. Don't think too much about something that may not necessarily happen, war not only makes us lose everything, but in the worst case even the country is unable to stop it, the economy is even disrupted and makes everything even more chaotic.

When you own land, whether there is a war or not, the land will never be lost and you are still the owner when you hold the land documents. War can destroy houses, but war cannot destroy the land on this earth. So consider it according to your interests and abilities and if you are familiar with bitcoin then maintain that commitment and vice versa for those who are consistently interested in investing in land.