I largely agree with your post, except something is missing from your assessment of other coins as compared with bitcoin, and you even make it seem as if bitcoin is guaranteed, when it is not.

You might be helped if you were to focus a bit more on various shitcoins by viewing them as affinity scams on bitcoin, which means that amay of them are either copying bitcoin or trying to be better than bitcoin, while the fact of the matter is that they need bitcoin in order for them to be used to scam others into believing that they have any kind of value.. and so surely there can be several of the shitcoins that can pump higher than bitcoin, yet they still likely have not really added anything sufficiently new that is like 10x better than anything that bitcoin can do so that they could end up taking market share from bitcoin.. so in that sense many folks who are not sufficiently aware of the difference between bitcoin and the various shitcoins are lured into the possibility that they could pump for the short term and might even appear to be gaining market share on bitcoin, and at the same time, folks might end up either not investing into bitcoin or underinvested into bitcoin because they are lured into inferior and unsubstantiated crap that might not even be what it proclaims to be or want to be.. and so sure people are completely free to invest into shitcoins and even to get distracted by them, but they are either misleading or employing vague language if they are trying to imply that bitcoin and shitcoins are in a similar category, which frequently means that they have not even studied bitcoin enough in order to at least error on the side of investing an overwhelming majority into bitcoin first before even fucking around with various ones who might be exaggeratingly proclaiming to either replace bitcoin or to supplement bitcoin.


To me it seems better to refer to various non-bitcoin cryptocurrencies as shitcoins or some other term that denigrates them and frames them as being inferior to bitcoin.  When we are referring to bitcoin, there might be times that we will talk about bitcoin and various other cryptocurrencies or even shitcoins or perhaps projects that relate to bitcoin or maybe some projects attempt to overlap bitcoin an shitcoins, such as exchanges might allow for the trading of bitcoin and shitcoins, or maybe some projects might relate to bitcoin without creating their own token.  Even lightning network is related to bitcoin, yet some folks try to proclaim that lighting network is not bitcoin, even though lightning network does not have the production of extra bitcoin, even though there can be some technical issues in transacting on lightning network that could cause a person to lose their bitcoin in ways that might not be possible if the bitcoin were transacted on the bitcoin network rather than getting put on the lightning network.

Sure, legally, there are descriptions of digital currencies and cryptocurrencies, and sometimes the various legislative clarifications are not practical in terms of making sure to clarify that shitcoins are inferior to bitcoin.. and likly in legislation (or court cases) they are not able to make those kinds of stances to clearly assert bitcoin as being better than shitcoins.. yet even though some legal entities might use terms to describe bitcoin within the category of crypto currency or digital currency or even block chain technology, as individuals we should be attempting to be more clear in terms of differentiating bitcoin from shitcoins in order that folks are not mislead into believing that shitcoins are sufficiently similar to bitcoin  and/or even worthy of diluting our value, time and energies into them..


You might be correct that there might be a lot of instances that we can be more clear with what we are saying, yet there may also be times where we might want to use the term crypto currency or even to suggest some areas in which  we are referring to both bitcoin and to shitcoins, so sometimes there might not be clear ways to avoid using certain terms, especially if we might come across someone else using those terms, we might want to use similar terms in order to communicate whatever we might be wanting to communicate. 

For example if we might be wanting to talk about want some legislation does, we might have to use some of their terms, and even to sometimes question the extent to which some ideas might not be clear, whether they are referring to present scenarios or future scenarios, and/or even if such ideas might be coming from law makers, judges, agency heads, elected officials, the media or some other recognized authority on definitional matters.  We do not necessarily need to agree, but sometimes we might still need to bat around ideas using similar terms and hopefully making our points in clear ways.. yet many of us know that there even might be cases where we don't know certain answers or how to respond, so there might be legitimate reasons, from time to time that using vagueness might be acceptable.


Many folks do not know what bitcoin is.. so they don't know how to consider bitcoin separate from shitcoins. Even bitcoiners will frequently have difficulties describing ways in which bitcoin and shitcoins are not the same thing.


I thought that anything that was not bitcoin is a shitcoin.  What is the difference between altcoins and shitcoins? are you trying to say that some altcoins are not shitcoins?


This does not seem come off as clear guidance.


Yes.


You are technically correct, but so what?  You are being vague,  misleading and perhaps even deceptive if you are lumping bitcoin in with shitcoins.


Bitcoin has been involved in fraud too.


You are making a largely irrelevant point.


You are trying to proclaim that bitcoin should be referred to as crypto?  That makes no sense. We have affinity scams going on, and a lot of shitcoiners and bitcoin naysayers who use the term crypto in order to try to imply or suggest that shitcoins are similar to bitcoin or better than bitcoin, and even used to create confusion, vagueness and/or to mislead, yet you still think that it is a good idea to go along with such a vague and misleading term?

Maybe you don't even understand what bitcoin is and what purpose comes from trying to be clear in our references?


This is a misleading attempt at an analogy.  You are not helping your argument, and maybe you are just trying to promote ambiguity and/or to mislead folks into an acceptance that bitcoin just happens to be one variation of crypto?

By the way, technically bitcoin is one of the crypto currencies, but folks who understand bitcoin are not likely to be fucking around spreading ambiguities or misleading folks into thinking that bitcoin and shitcoins are the same thing merely because technically they can all be labeled as crypto currencies.  The issue should not be too difficult to understand.


You are likely the one who is foolish by insisting on the use of such a term.. Tell us what are you wanting to talk about? in regards to bitcoin as it relates to various shitcoins?  Sure there could be times where the term crypto or crypto currency is appropriate to use, yet many times you better clarify what the fuck you are talking about instead of talking in vague nonsense and trying to act like you are smarter than everyone else merely because bitcoin happens to technically fit within a broader definition of cryptocurrency... Again.. so what?  You come off as retarded to insist on such.


You are the one who sounds confused.

Which shitcoins are you talking about?  What is the point that you are wanting to make about bitcoin as compared with various shitcoins?

Do you want to say that various shitcoins are traded on exchanges? Do you want to recommend any?  How about various crypto that are being bought by companies to formulate part of their treasury?  Are the buying any specific cryptos? and which ones and why?  Do you think that some shitcoins are better than others in one way or another?  How do they differ from each other?  Which ones are proof of work? Do any of them have difficulty adjustments? 

How are the coins issues and then how are they maintained?  How are they kept secure and how do we know about their supply? Is there anything that assures the validity of each of the coins? and if so how are they validated?  Does it make a difference? Should these validations processes be compared with bitcoin or do we want to consider the various validation processes of the various crypto in their own light? 

I am sure you have all this figured out, to the extent that you are so smart about labelling, and surely there is no real benefit in regards to learning about bitcoin first sine we can create a bunch of nonsense characteristics and then describe each cryptocurrency and figure out which of the nonsense characteristics each of them have or don't have.

You come off as even more arrogant to be arguing the dumbass point that bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, which many of us already know that bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, yet at the same time, there is likely no real productive purpose to convoluting terms and lumping bitcoin within this category if you don't first make sure that you understand what bitcoin is in the first place.. .so then you would have a reference point in regards to the various shitcoins and the extent to which any of them might be worthy of being talked about, depending on what point you are wanting to make about them in potentially comparing them to bitcoin.