At times you really do seem on a mission. What would you say that mission is?
I realise that a particular cryptocurrency can be an object of affection for many, but once you've been through a few of them they start to be less so. It also helps to know what the real basis for the valuation is.
I don't have a "mission" as you put it other than to determine what that basis is. In that regard, it's a matter of documented fact that no amount of over enthusiastic promotion and bluster about 'great communities', media exposure and "not going back" has anything other than an ambiguous effect on the price. The reason I might appear "on a mission" to some is because whenever I see that amount of bluster while the basis for the valuation remains unclear, alarm bells go off. I suspect that most people don't actually know what they're investing in, although some might.
If I'm investing in "hype" then fine. It might still go far but as long as I'm aware of it I can make a genuine assessment as to my own valuation. On the other hand if it's more than hype then equally, thats usefull to know. For example Peercoin has a genuinely thought out cryptoeconomic role as a 'backbone' mechanism for large financial transactions with appropriate transaction fees and associated properties to deter small transactions. (I'm not a holder). Darkcoin (potentially) has a trustless anonymous transmission feature which clearly gives it a role - even for holders of other currencies. NxT has a potentially self-sustaining business model in the form of network services which supply 3rd party asset holders.
The fact that holders of a coin "value" it in an affectionate sense is no substitute for such an economic role. There are plenty of POS coins out there that can substitute for Blackcoin. So at the moment I'm thinking that this coin's value is based on the multipool effect and some strong promotion. I'm not saying thats bad, I'm just saying it's *it*.
Regarding the substance of your post: The phrase you have coined, "parasitic mining" is wonderfully sensationalist rhetoric. But it's based on a false premise, and a false analogy. This rhetorical trick supports a dichotomy you have set up, between "genuine" and "artificial", which you then abuse to the point of fallacy. The parasite analogy while colorful does not accurately describe the relationship between our multipool and the coins mined. Nor is there any "artificial" happening here. The multipool is a mechanism by which genuine Blackcoin fans genuinely express their genuine valuation for the coin
I think this is as open to interpretation as any impartial observer sees fit. I agree with your false analogy from the point of view of a Blackcoin holder. But if you were a Kruger or Ruby coin holder, who Coinwarz suggests are the current targets of the multipool, you'd probably go with the "Parasitic" angle.
Actually, I used that word in a very specific context which is that it adds value to the coin which originates outwith the coin's own crypto-economic properties (in contrast to the 3 examples I gave above). In fact it originates in other coins. In that respect it's appropriate - albeit the strategy is perfectly legitimate.
As I say, I don't mind holding and supporting the coin. I just want to be clear about what it is I am holding.
