[elif]

The only losers in bitcoin are the ones that stopped. Any 5+ year holding has been ridiculously profitable.

In gambling, the longer you continue, the more certain it is that you will lose. Bitcoin is a uniquely ironic form of gambling if it's gambling at all.

[koolba]

We’re still below the all time highs of about $68K so will need 3 more years to see if that theory plays out.

[guiambros]

That's silly. Anyone who's dollar cost averaging bitcoin buys over a long period of time has been incredibly well rewarded. BTC is up 146% over the last 12 months, and up 15x (!) over the last 5 years.

Even if you were slow and naïve and only jumped at the 2021 all-time high, and kept buying during the next 12 months (as one should when an asset you like goes down), you'd have made your money back and then some.

[koolba]

Dollar cost averaging and “Any 5+ year holding” are not the same thing.

[guiambros]

I didn't say buy-and-hold for 5 years. Feel free to do the math; dollar cost averaging over 5 years would still be one of the best investments in modern times.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

I think timing may not work , but given the strict limited supply, this works in the long term.

Of course, this is highly dependent on the "coin"

[czl]

> Any 5+ year holding has been ridiculously profitable.

The more remarkable a short history the more likely it is not sustainable: Beanie babies, tulips, etc.

In a zero sum investment for every win there is a loss. Bitcoin however is highly negative sum. For every win there are far more losses. Who do you suppose pays hourly train loads of coal turned into CO2? How many years now?

[elif]

Your two examples, beanie babies(4-5 yrs bubble) and tulip mania (16 months) did not even last long enough for a 5 year comparison. Bitcoin is turning 15 this year.