see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
People/companies suing people over domains isn't new. See for instance, nissan.com
2. What is a refutation then? The OP was the equivalent of getting cut off by a BMW, then lamenting how BMW drivers are "are so gross" and how you can them seriously when they "acts like petulant middle schoolers". If you don't think that counts as a refutation, what does?
The problem is that crypto advocates will spend all day bending your ear about how crypto is necessary for the good of humanity, and then as soon as you point out any of the bad shit happening, claim no honorable intentions were ever claimed, the existing system sucks anyway, get over it, buy my token loser.
linguistic descriptivism to the rescue!
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refute
>2. (transitive, proscribed) To deny the truth or correctness of (something).
>Usage notes
>The second meaning of refute (“to deny the truth of”) is proscribed as erroneous by some (compare Merriam Webster,1994). An alternative term with such a meaning is repudiate, which means to reject or refuse to acknowledge, but without the implication of justification. However, this distinction does not exist in the original Latin refūtō (“oppose, resist, rebut”), which can apply to both senses.
That said, I'll concede that it's not strictly not a refutation, because I don't think it's ultimately relevant to the conversation.
>The problem is that crypto advocates will spend all day bending your ear about how crypto is necessary for the good of humanity, and then as soon as you point out any of the bad shit happening, claim no honorable intentions were ever claimed, the existing system sucks anyway, get over it, buy my token loser.
I don't understand what your point here is. Are you claiming that Jump Trading or their leadership engages in the behavior that you mentioned? Or are you simply noting that there's crypto companies/people doing shady stuff?
He didn't list or make any explicit reference to any other instances. The entirety of the comment consists of:
1. assertion that "crypto people are so gross"
2. claiming that the actions of "a “major” platform" (singular) causes him to be unable to take current state of crypto seriously
>You haven't demonstrated how your analogy is useful.
Maybe BMW driver are actually "so gross", but on a forum like HN I expect more arguments backing that than just a reference to the current story.
Your expectations aren't likely to be met if you spend time on fallacies instead of just writing one line asking for more evidence as to why crypto people are gross.
They are desperate to become the new middle men so they fight dirty.
Yeah, I don’t get how they see this as a good move.
Sorry to shatter your illusions, that's not specific to crypto at all. Disney lawyers are far less child-friendly than the company's content, and so is pretty much every major corporation. Just this week, I remember Zara (the fashion retailer) sueing a one-woman-run boutique named House of Zana. A bit before they also sued a women's empowerment business called Tara Sartorial (yes, because of likeness of the names). The number of tiny independents that Jack Wolfskin has sued for putting anything resembling an animal footprint onto pretty much any fabric is countless. We could go on here.
Eg, Disney is currently suffering major financial losses due to being associated with child grooming and trying to overturn democratically passed laws.
Is your point that I should accept the grotesquery of a major company suing an old man because others behave badly?
…How does that make sense?
> Sorry to shatter your illusions, that's not specific to crypto at all.
This is also a petty ad hominem that requires an uncharitable assumption about me.
Far from shattering my “illusions”, you just revealed your own cynicism and low standards.
>This is also a petty ad hominem that requires an uncharitable assumption about me.
The contrast between those two statements is most interesting.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/ot...
Because some people do not give a fuck. We're talking about people who support valuation of assets based on speculation with no actual economic value while pumping out oceans of CO2 and wasting copious amounts of energy to have computers, to simplify a bit, guess a number somewhere between 0 and 2^255 for the privelege.
Seems on brand.
> Merryman hadn’t been serious about selling, he said, throwing out what he viewed as a high offer to get them to go away.
If he wasn't serious about selling, he should have said so and moved on. It seems smarmy to quote an offer price without a sincere intent to sell.
Merryman is 79, and receiving emails about selling the domain he's owned for decades. He has never asked for these emails, and just wants to be left alone. He throws a highball offer, hoping they'll go away. He then clarifies that he doesn't want to sell, which he is of course fully allowed to do. Then they sue him.
I would say there are smarmy actions in here, but not on the part of Merryman.
He increased the price to 100k, then 200k, then said no.
Jump's original bid is 2,500 dollars.
View it from the eyes of a guy that retired in 2001, or any reasonable person, and $50k for a domain is an absurd amount that should have been tantamount to "I'm not selling, take off."
There are many reasonable people who understand that $50k is nothing for a decent domain name.
I’m sick of living in a society where wealthy people are able to bully and harass others.
No corporation would feel bound to honor a price tossed out casually in an email with nothing signed — and it’s disgusting they’re suing an old man to bully him.
Why is it crypto people are so gross? — how can I take the current state of crypto seriously when a “major” platform acts like petulant middle schoolers?