[misnamed]

I mean if you're literally talking about the difference between 'buying physical servers' and 'buying Bitcoin' ... well, it seems to me you're missing out on a range of other options, like: investing in companies developing new hardware, for starters. Personally, I just lease what I need at going rates, which get ever cheaper. And by cheaper I mean: in dollar terms - so to keep up with that, I don't see the need to hold highly volatile Bitcoins when I can just hold inflation-adjusted Treasury bonds.

[jamesmehaffey]

Bitcoin is probably not the best case study for this aspect of the conversation, but I suppose you have a fair enough point. Although to be clear, I am thinking of the assets more like commodities than speculative stocks or equities. I do not mean to suggest that traditional servers are going to go away or become obsolete any time soon, but after you get past the cryptocurrency hype in the headlines there really is a huge amount of potential for the technology. This is definitely what long-term investors are considering and why this is even a topic here.

[misnamed]

My main issue is conflating the potential for an approach to technology with something like, say, Bitcoin specifically. Yes, many blockchain applications exist, but that doesn't translate into profits from investing in cryptocurrencies.

I've always liked the saying 'sell pickaxes to the miners' - rather than investing in the virtual gold, why not sell things to those who want to go find it? The real winners will likely be the companies who facilitate things (much like active trading platforms make money while the options traders on them often lose money overall).