I believe it is mostly for clearity sake and to be more precise that is why it will be good to used bitcoin instead of cryptocurrency. Since cryptocurrency is a general name and includes different coins. So using it while referring to bitcoin may end up confusing others that may not really know the exact coins you have in mind to avoid such ambiguousity while referring to bitcoin, the term crypto currency shouldn't be used.
You should know that cryptocurrency is a general term, but you're right we need to be more specific while giving reference so that newbies won't end up making the wrong choice. The thing is, most folks are used to the term "cryptocurrency" which is why they usually mention cryptocurrency whenever they are making explanation as regards to Bitcoin investment because they feel that they are all together which can be very misleading more especially to newbies. So now that Bitcoin has gained independence we all have to address it as
digital asset So it is high time we stop using the term cryptocurrency" while making explanation.
I doubt that it helps to be using a vague term such as "digital asset" instead of using "crypto currency".
Part of the problem is that both of those terms are vague and it does not help to change the term to "digital asset" and conclude that you solved the problem that involves vagueness and lumping shitcoin and bitcoin into one category without specifying what you are talking about. Accordingly, using the term digital asset does not solve the issue and it continues to be vague, ambiguous, misleading and potentially intentionally deceptive.
Another problem is each of the two terms (digital asset or Crypto currency) put bitcoin in the same category as shitcoins, and yeah lawmakers might engage in such practices to try to define categories, yet if we are trying to have a meaningful discussion, we should not be using such vague and broad terms... Even lawmakers might get themselves in troubles if they are trying to define categories broadly and not sufficiently specifying. Shitcoin promoters and bitcoin naysayers just love if we are using vague references about bitcoin and and including shitcoins and bitcoin as if they were all the same thing.
If you are referring to bitcoin then why not use the term bitcoin or at least describe where and/or how bitcoin fits into the discussion.
If you are talking about some shitcoin, then maybe it is o.k. to use the term crypto or digital asset as long as you have provided some description of what you are talking about, yet how is it going to be known what is being talked about with the use of just a general reference.
It seems to me that we have been talking about bitcoin in this thread.. and we are on a bitcoin forum, too.
Exactly, after all shitcoins are digital and can be considered to be assets by some people so tagging bitcoin solely with the digital asset term makes it look like just another shitcoin and there is also the lack of specificity since no one can really know that you are talking about bitcoin when you just throw in digital asset in a conversation, you can blame people when they make the wrong assumption in a situation like this because you didn't specify what you were talking about in the first place.
If we are to talk about bitcoin in a conversation and as we are in this thread then it's best to use it's actual name rather than referring to it with vague and misleading terminologies.
Sometimes the vague terms are used out of sloppiness or trying to look smart to be talking generally about several cryptos (not just bitcoin) and other times the vague terms are used in order to purposefully mislead.
It should not be difficult to specify the reference, even though sometimes it might take more words.. since there could actually be times that a person is talking about bitcoin and shitcoins too.. so maybe some kind of legislation will pass that talks about bitcoin and shitcoins, or maybe the legislation is vague, and if a person might be wanting to describe such a thing then it could take some effort to figure it out, or maybe a person is referring to an article and then say that the article talks about bitcoin and talks about shitcoins.
And perhaps even describing that some articles are badly written too, so that if an article is badly written and seems to either be sloppy or maybe it is purposefully vague in the way it talks about bitcoin and/or crypto, then the way that an article is written might sometimes be relevant when referring to an article rather than just accepting the vague and/or misleading representations that are made in the article. I have seen forum members try to negate their own sloppiness by proclaiming that they are merely repeating what was said in the article, which surely is sloppy thinking that lacks in critical thinking, and I would think that guys participate in a forum like this in order to attempt to improve their bitcoin-related knowledge and maybe even to attempt to improve their abilities to think and present information in critical ways rather than just parroting some of the vague and/or misleading nonsense that might exist through various mainstream media sources.
At least if we might not be trying to improve ourselves, then maybe at least we are merely trying to improve our understanding of bitcoin. Critical thinking helps with either of those aspirations to improve self or to improve understanding of bitcoin.
