Me: > I don't know there's conclusive evidence at this point... I already said there was no conclusive evidence yet, but that's not the same thing as "debunked

Me: > I don't know there's conclusive evidence at this point... I already said there was no conclusive evidence yet, but that's not the same thing as "debunked." A judge agrees. Had it in fact been "debunked repeatedly" then the lawsuit would not be permitted to proceed. >> The court did dismiss RICO charges against the defendants. However, it found the plaintiffs adequately alleged monopolization, market manipulation, common law fraud, and violation of the Commodities Exchange Act. A judge literally found based on the plaintiffs evidence that they have adequately alleged market manipulation. So, let's see where that goes then, shall we? Either the judge is wearing a tinfoil hat too, or I suggest new talking points. Of course I don't like cryptocurrency, lol, it's hot garbage IMO. However, I wouldn't like it any more or less at $1,000 than I would at $100,000 (well, except that Bitcoin's environmental footprint cap is proportional to its price - so lower is better for the planet).