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're forgiven. Just to be clear, despite that fact that you're profoundly and dangerously wrong about litecoin, I respect a lot of what you say and the promotion you've done for the bitcoin community in general (with the exception of the multi-year litecoin distraction).
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.
Ok, seems like irrelevant semantics, so I'll rephrase: PEOPLE who saw the advantages and potentially world-changing nature of a scarce, global, distributed, electronic, frictionless money had to FIGHT from SCRATCH to get many humans to consider the entire concept more than a laughing stock. This seems pretty obvious and undebatable to me... Many former naysayers/skeptics in finance, politics, tech, econ, etc, have come around on BITCOIN.
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).
Congrats. Your misunderstanding of the overall crypto-ecosystem, and the harm you're doing to everyone, including yourself (ultimately), has luckboxed into a nice payoff for the moment.
I should potentially not say "luckboxed", since you may have an easier time understanding the flawed logic of bandwaggoners and therefore realized early that litecoin was likely to obtain an irrational (judged by longrun fundamentals) temporary success.
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.
I don't know what you're trying to say here.
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?
...
That's still an invalid way to look at things for the reasons I've outlined (in several different semantic forms now).
Did you even look up your facts before trying to debunk my thought process and argument with your "Bitcoin fought that battle" statement?
Not sure where you think I put forth any incorrect facts...
Anyways, only time will tell, so how about this... I'll bet you 100 LTC to 1 BTC that LTC will be trading for < 0.01 BTC 5 years from now. That is, I'll give you 100 LTC on August 19th 2019 if the price of LTC is >= 0.01 BTC, and you give me 1 BTC if the price of LTC is < 0.01 BTC. Interested? Cypher can escrow, if he's willing.
Poll
