What a long winded to say you take issue with the semantics... Crypto is very well accepted term even in the Bitcoin community since at least 2011 when I was on

What a long winded to say you take issue with the semantics... Crypto is very well accepted term even in the Bitcoin community since at least 2011 when I was on Bitcoin Talk Forums. I personally refer to its by its actual name as I don't like speaking in generalizations as each ecosystem is its own thing, as you are aware, and I instead will say: Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin etc... but I would never assume someone is not competent because they used a term that has reached ubiquitous use to refer to the entirety of the Cryptocurrency Ecosystem. Andersen Horowitz has been a proponent for Bitcoin since the days of Circle, right? I seem to remember his names being thrown around since back then. I'm glad there are early adopters like yourself, predating me as I got in 2011, in the public discourse here but in light of all the disinformation around here do you really think hyper-focusing on semantics is the best way to try and clarify the Public's view on the subject? Many people here, most with professional careers in tech and CS, don't even understand that Bitcoin solved the Byzantines General's problem in an elegant manner, one previously thought to be impossible. And often make specious reasoned arguments from that POV. And I'm expected to take this argument of misused terms seriously?