Re:Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire
by rayiner on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @02:18PM
(#6929868)
First, "land in the U.K." or "land in Manhattan" is an asset class you can study by itself. Land isn't a wholly fungible asset.
Second, the example you give actually undermines the point you're trying to make. Bitcoin, if adopted in a major way as a currency, would be even more "like land" than land is generally. More specifically, it's would be like "land below 96th street in Manhattan" or "land in London" as a result of uniformly high, ever-increasing value on a per unit basis, driven by ever-increasing demand for a fixed quantity of good.
> look at say Manhattan
Cherry-picking examples like this undermines your point. The value of land is non-uniform. Of course looking at the largest urban metropolises or extremely powerful island countries, land will be valuable. In the north central US for example, away from urban areas, land is much cheaper (provided it isn't sitting on large deposits of fossil fuels, of course) and I'd guess it also changes hands a lot more often.
Bitcoins OTOH are all created equal.