[danShumway]

As an end user, why should I care about a technicality over how exactly someone is manipulating a currency that I own? Why does it matter whether manipulation is direct or indirect?

If the claim is that Bitcoin is only immune to specifically direct manipulation (where direct is a narrow sub-category of manipulation techniques), then... sure, maybe that's true, but it's also not that impressive and doesn't change all that much about the end-user's risks, since the more general forms of currency manipulation still seem to be entirely possible.

> You can cause panic in traditional finance markets, too. It's the exact same principle at play.

I don't think that's being debated, people are just pointing out that Bitcoin's price can be still be manipulated by powerful actors.

[rglover]

Bitcoin's price, yes, but not the actual currency itself. That will be the major psychological void to fill in for people: thinking about Bitcoin as a currency, not an investment or gambling device.

I expect that to take decades as the government/media are and will continue to attack Bitcoin and influence public opinion as it directly interferes with their business model.

[danShumway]

Two things. First:

> Bitcoin's price, yes, but not the actual currency itself.

Again, as a user, who the heck cares? The Bitcoin in your wallet changes how much it's worth, it's the same outcome as normal currency manipulation. If the effects are the same, and the changes to the value of the currency are the same, then the specific details about how that effect was caused don't matter to end users.

Second:

> That will be the major psychological void to fill in for people: thinking about Bitcoin as a currency, not an investment or gambling device.

I just finished talking to someone a day ago on this very site who argued with me for ages that Bitcoin was a store of value and shouldn't be thought of a currency and accused me of not understanding the history of the coin because I pointed out correctly that many early proponents of Bitcoin were pushing it as a currency for regular everyday transactions.

And I am so not willing to have the same exact conversation a second time just with the the details and direction swapped out. All of these arguments always being with, "hah, people should research Bitcoin more before criticizing it", even though everyone in the community who says that is constantly making contradictory claims while arguing that they represent some kind of community consensus or coordinated effort.

But to summarize the problems with the specific claim being made this time around:

Bitcoin is bad at everyday transactions for a dozen reasons that have been already explored in depth over and over again in the past and that are easy to research. If your goal is to make an everyday transactable currency, Bitcoin is a bad choice for that, for obvious reasons -- even without getting into the technical reasons why a deflationary asset is in general a bad fit for transactions, all you need to do is look at the history of Bitcoin's price; that's not a chart that indicates a healthy currency intended to be used for normal purchases. Honestly, the characterization of Bitcoin as a rarely-transferred store of value is a stronger argument, and even that isn't a particularly strong argument.

[rootusrootus]

First BTC has to do better than USD at transactions. It clearly isn't there now, and I'm not sure I see a path where it achieves that. USD will continue to exist as long as the US Government does, and if that falls, then, well, I've got other problems more pressing.