The tech is not wrong, the code is not wrong. Shitcoin refers to the selling of a token on top of the code. In my opinion
Discussion
Every crypto "coins" are based on math algos, so there are no differences. Bitcoin was the first and it inspired the devs to invent other blockchain based crypto assets and solutions.
I think it's not a real reason to call other coins as shitcoins because "it is not bitcoin" when we use the know-how build into these "shitcoins".
It is not about trading with them, it is a principal question.
If you selling shit wrapped in foiled shinny gold I’d call it shit nevertheless.
If you develop code that solves a problem, there is no need to put a token on top of it.
So if we talking about principals and morality, shitcoins are very down in that scale. That’s why I call them shitcoins and not shitcode.
Possibly true. This means that good code can conclude shit result as a coin. But if you call some coin as shit, I think it is inmoral to use the code of it. The guys who developed the code surely didn't want to invent shitcoin. And if a coin is shit, those who call it shitcoin, should know enough about it to argue in a well-founded way what is the problem with the given coin. I think that just because it has less value on crypto exchanges does not make it a shitcoin. E.g. the arguments in favor of "bitcoin only" the Chainalyis in a study refuted it in 37 points.
Some coins beside bitcoin have advantages too and if you look at the crypto market, which is mainly driven by the price of bitcoin, the coins that follow the trend and don't lose value, I wouldn't call them shitcoins. And it's also not true that every other coin has private companies behind it, except bitcoin. Look at the mining pools, practically everything is in China's hands. Therefore, the fact that we do not officially know who Satoshi Nakamoto is does not mean that decentralization is true.
Sorry for the long answer, we deviated quite a bit from the original topic.