[axanoeychron]

This argument is weak and your tone is dismissive. I think you're ascribing too much intent based on your own biases.

You can't just say 'someone doesn't understand' crypto and not explain why. It reeks of an appeal to an authority and is not conducive to discussion.

The Dogecoin mentioned at the end was a joke.

It's also disingenuous to accuse someone of trying to inflate the price (without evidence) and to say that someone is 'hurting the cryptocurrency movement'. You accuse someone of speculating and and that fuels mistrust and yet oblivious to yourself doing it.

[drakaal]

Enough other people pointed to flaws in the explanations that I didn't feel the need to beat a dead horse about those things.

The whole article was a joke. The stuff about Dogecoin seems less a joke than the rest of the article.

It is clear the author owns Bitcoins or Dogecoins or both. I can't prove this, but I'll bet 1 cryptocoin of my choosing on it.

I don't currently own any Cryptocoins. I sold just shy of $950 after the first fall from $1000 to nearly $550. I bought 10 at $650-ish. It was a good deal, I did not make any comments about BTC while I held with out disclosing my investment in the currency. (I have some journalistic ethics)

[axanoeychron]

I was personally tempted to buy BTC from Mt Gox when they were worth around 90 dollars but decided against it. Shortly thereafter, they were breached and now this.

When the currency stabilizes, I'll consider getting some.