[danShumway]

Direct or not, in that scenario the Bitcoin price is still being artificially increased for the benefit of a private malevolent actor.

If you want to call that something other than manipulation, then :shrug:, more power to you. But my main takeaway is still going to be that banannaise's original comment seems to be mostly accurate.

[rglover]

> But my main takeaway is still going to be that banannaise's original comment seems to be mostly accurate.

I'd highly recommend taking the time to rethink that position. The systems being implemented now will permanently enslave you. Bitcoin is the only escape. And no, I'm not being hyperbolic.

[danShumway]

> The systems being implemented now will permanently enslave you.

Recognizing that there are significant problems with current financial systems does not automatically imply that Bitcoin in specific is a reasonable or feasible alternative to those systems.

Candy bars are unhealthy for me, and I can recognize that, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated to eat dirt. In other words, it's not enough for Bitcoin proponents to point out that traditional fiat systems have problems, they need to prove that Bitcoin meaningfully solves those problems or improves upon them. All of you've done so far in this thread is argue about how narrowly people should apply the word "manipulation", you haven't demonstrated that banannaise's original comment is wrong in a way that ordinary currency users would care about.

I think most of the real-world evidence we have shows that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are just as manipulable as existing systems regardless of whether or not they have a fixed supply, and in fact are currently somehow impossibly managing to be regularly manipulated to an even higher degree than existing fiat systems.

[rglover]

> you haven't demonstrated that banannaise's original comment is wrong in a way that ordinary currency users would care about.

I already did but you didn't like my answer.