Yes I agree this is also a possible defintion.
Pfff, and what is the community decide I have to die? Will I have to? Seriously.
No. I don’t have to do anything.
When it comes to conceptual worlds, you have two choices:
- you accept to interprete the new definitions if some are given
- you do not accept them
If you choose 1), then maybe you have a chance to understand what is said. But that still require an effort to understand the imbrication of the new concepts. This might take hours, days or even years (think about Einstein relativity for example).
If you choose 2), then you won’t understand anything, for sure. Because there will exist inconsistencies, that is, definitions that are not compliant between them. Here, you will be lost in infinite loop of non-understanding and rejections of definitions and conclusions.
You are currently in choice 2. You reject the new definitions and so you don’t understand why we agree to say “this is free currency”.
Note how this do not imply to accept 1) forever. You can do it for the time you study a particular case. You can get back to another definition thereafter.
If you really don’t agree with the “free money” term, then just say “free acccording to the definitions given by the RMT”, which does not mean this is the free as in your own definition.
We don’t force anyone here.
Edit: I hope that, with this comment, you understood that “majority” does not legitimate anything. You might be right, alone in a room of wrong guys. Majority won’t change this.
« Au pays des fous, ce sont les sains d’esprit qui paraissent fous. »