I do not ideologically judge a coin at all - I judge its market value best reflected by its volume. I do not care whether it's called Dogecoin or Bitcoindark or Laudacoin, whether it is premined or not or this or that, I care whether it is traded at a high volume or not. [...] You must understand that your entire point is of ideological nature, hence completely useless to me. If it's able to increase my capital, it is good. Capital is important to me, not ideology.
[ ... ]
p.s. bitcointalk-account status does not correlate with knowledge of cryptocurrency markets. why so arrogant?
On your latter point, I tend to agree that is true in most cases but in this particular instance, you post an unsupported simplistic assertion as the topic of a bitcointalk thread and you received some negative feedback because of that. Why so thin-skinned?
If you are so convinced of the primacy of this factor, why don't you simply code up your assertion as an algorithm, hook it up to your bank account, sit back and watch your wealth accumulate? Because, despite your strenuous assertions, that's
not how you as an individual assess an altcoin. You cannot rely on casual introspection to produce reliable information about your own mental processes:
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.By Nisbett, Richard E.; Wilson, Timothy D.
Psychological Review, Vol 84(3), Mar 1977, 231-259.
Abstract
Reviews evidence which suggests that there may be little or no direct introspective access to higher order cognitive processes. Ss are sometimes (a) unaware of the existence of a stimulus that importantly influenced a response, (b) unaware of the existence of the response, and (c) unaware that the stimulus has affected the response. It is proposed that when people attempt to report on their cognitive processes, that is, on the processes mediating the effects of a stimulus on a response, they do not do so on the basis of any true introspection. Instead, their reports are based on a priori, implicit causal theories, or judgments about the extent to which a particular stimulus is a plausible cause of a given response. This suggests that though people may not be able to observe directly their cognitive processes, they will sometimes be able to report accurately about them. Accurate reports will occur when influential stimuli are salient and are plausible causes of the responses they produce, and will not occur when stimuli are not salient or are not plausible causes. (86 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
A more likely context is that you (in common with other laypersons) are probably mostly oblivious to the cognitive biases (
wikipedia entry) operating within your mental model and this has led you to construct some quite profound misperceptions which you may find compelling but others simply don't.
Cheers,
Graham
