> Let's assume the average reader knows nothing about cryptocurrency besides it being 'digital money' nor do they care about the technical details. Telling peop

> Let's assume the average reader knows nothing about cryptocurrency besides it being 'digital money' nor do they care about the technical details. Telling people there have been no fraudulent transactions in the history of the currency is disingenuous. There have been numerous instances in which A's money moved to B without A's consent. Technically writing that off as non-fraudulent might be correct, in that it abides by the rules of the system, but it is likely not what the average reader is using to interpret it. So your argument is not that it's misleading/infactual, infactual, but that the colon person would misinterpret this. Does this not happen with technical subjects all the time? Such as in law, some of the lingo used doesn't follow the community accepted definition.