Sort:  

It's just another application of the incredible "law of averages": take one article divide it by the number of authors contributing actual content, and you get a remarkably similar article. But seriously, the flawed logic of even attempting to apply a "law of averages" to the future price of bitcoin makes the original article almost as bad as the plagiarism. At least the article admitted it was a total failure, I guess (but apparently couldn't even figure out why).