...
The perspective is skewed as we are comparing Bitcoin which is over 5 years old to Litecoin which is less than 3 years old. Uneven metric for comparison.
...
Invalid. As I noted on page 530:
...
Where was Bitcoin when it was at 2.75 years old?
...
No. You said that further upthread too, and I let you get away with it, but this is the 2nd time, so...no! You cannot compare the time-since-inception independently for each since Bitcoin CREATED the entire crypto-currency ecosystem from scratch and had to fight that nasty battle solo. All cryptos are basically coat-tailing on the interest and groundbreaking that bitcoin has done.
So if Litecoin has any merit at all, it *should* show A LOT more relative interest/market-cap/whatever 2.75yrs into its lifecycle versus bitcoin 2.75yrs in. Litecoin has the benefit of letting something else pioneer the space; and that was the actual hard work.
Using any metric about Litecoin 2.75yrs-in versus Bitcoin 2.75yrs-in in order to supposedly demonstrate some sort of comparative long-run litecoin validity is just broken...
Perhaps you are somewhat right but at the same time comparing 5.5 year Bitcoin to less than 3 year old Litecoin is also skewed no matter which way you try to debunk it.
It is the same as trying to compare as I said previously a Bill Gates to a newly created 18 year old millionaire. You can't compare them as one has had much more time and exposure.
As is the same as Bitcoin which has had much more time and exposure.
"scratch and had to fight that nasty battle"?...lol you make as if Bitocin consciously fought anything. Bitcoin is a protocol and payment network and it doesn't have a conscious to "scratch" and "fight" anything.
A math problem does not fight to keep its absolute truth of its value by just being what it is....2 + 2 will always equal 4 and it doesn't have to fight to be anything but 4 as the answer.
Please stop trying to attempt to make Bitcoin out to be a self-conscious system that had to do such things and should be given credit when it also benefited by the exposure it has had and over the time it has been around.
To say otherwise is also a broken argument.
I used "scratch" as a noun, not a verb. I think you skimmed my post. I stand by argument, finding nothing new in yours.
Yes you are correct I skimmed it. Sorry with as many posts I read every day I am bound to misread a part of one at some point. Forgive me.
You obviously did not address the word "fight" and how Bitcoin did that.
Nothing new? LOL yes please ignore the fact that you obviously said that Bitcoin fought a battle.
As if it has a conscience.
I would say that is pretty new information in our little debate about comparing Bitcoin and Litecoin and useful metric of comparing them on how "successful" they are. Hence why I said your argument was broken given using that statement.
Full Disclosure: I was one of the few who bought LTC when they were ~$0.005 each. So yes I would know how to call things pretty well (i.e. that it was a bargain back then) even when there was the same type of statements about LTC that are being spouted today (i.e. "Litecoin is dying" blah blah).
The obvious bias to Litecoin that some here have is fine as they are entitled to their opinion but it is somewhat funny when the same things happen to Bitcoin in terms of price suppression those same things are ignored.
Just so everyone is aware...
When bitcoin was 2.75 years old it was ~$4-$6.
and
When Litecoin was 2.75 years old it too was ~$4-$6...
So when I say that comparing them using a time metric of life span is less skewed than comparing them in today's terms (as if Litecoin is even competing against Bitcoin ...which it is not in my view)....I actually do have a point...
Given I asked the original question:
...
Where was Bitcoin when it was at 2.75 years old?
...
Did you even look up your facts
before trying to debunk my thought process and argument with your "Bitcoin fought that battle" statement?
Poll
