And that can also be true of pyramid schemes with no redeeming qualities, Bernie Madoff style fraud, or of sheer random gambling. You have to actually prove that blockchains are not in those categories.
If you were aware of Bitcoin when it was worth a couple hundreds of dollars and you wrote it off as a fad or whatever and turns out you were completely wrong about it, you would definitely feel like you missed out, no? Sure, better late than never, but you still can't change that feeling.
Of course, the question then becomes whether Bitcoin will be more like Pets.com or whether it will climb higher. I have a guess, but I don't claim to know for sure.
Bernie Madoff's fraud lasted longer than that.
Not to mention that the entire argument is based on a get rich quick scheme which is exactly what the doubters argue crypto coins are, and the entire post which I replied to originally can be summed up to 50Cent "You just jealous cause I'm rich".
I was aware of Bitcoin when it was under a dollar. I wrote it off as a fad. I continue to write it off as a fad, albeit one that became more dangerous than I expected.
This approach enables you to disregard the opinion of literally everybody who owns no BTC. That's going to cause trouble.
There is no missing out though. There is buying when it's lower and selling when it's higher and you can do that starting now as you always could. Or buy and hold if you think that's what you should do or whatever.
I really have no dog in the fight and don't really care one way or another. Just for the sake of the argument though: something can be complete shit with no redeeming qualities. It is not a must that it's good but imperfect and that it requires a solution to make it better. So the opinions of "no-coiners" are not inferior by default. You have to actually prove that they are with some form of argument or evidence.