Bitcoin Cash Soars to $700, Coinbase Customers Threaten to Sue - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2017/08/02/bitcoin-cash-lawsuit/ <comment><USER2> Big point to remember: the current high price is artificial. There are only a few exchanges selling BCH, and they aren't accepting deposits. The only sellers are those who had BTC there prior to August 1. So it's a sellers market. There's a ton of demand to sell. Once those deposits are enabled, you'll see a flood of dumping, and the price will crash.

So let's say Coinbase allows BCH withdrawals. Unless they enabled trading it (which they didn't with ETC when ETH forked), all those Coinbasers wouldn't be able to sell anyways. They'd be waiting like everyone else, so that $700 price wouldn't matter.

<comment><USER3> Regardless of the price, an exchange cannot seize customer assets by giving them 10 days notice for withdrawal. It doesn't matter if it's a separate currency - we have things resembling this in public markets, like stock splits. It doesn't matter if everyone can fork the cryptocurrency, that doesn't change the principle of a customer's asset.

What Coinbase should have done is this:

1\. Stood their ground on not supporting trading for the cryptocurrency, because they are under no obligation to develop new features.

2\. Implemented a system to disburse the forked currency to customers if needed.

3\. Implemented an explicit trigger price for acknowledging the new currency, which would function for potential forks of currencies already supported on the platform. If the currency does not pass a specific (very low, far lower than $700) mark, they don't disburse it, but if it does, they immediately support disbursal to anyone who requests it.

The organic state of a cryptocurrency fork is that all extant holders receive _a new asset_ , which may or may not be worth anything. A company cannot seize that asset without consideration. If the price of the currency subsequently crashes, then it crashes; that does not change the rights of a customer to their assets, which cannot be signed away with an email sent out 10 days before the event.

<comment><USER4> Where do you draw the line though? Anyone can invent new tokens and grant them to bitcoin holders; should Coinbase be required to support every one?

This is not a hypothetical question. I particpated in two airdrops this year, Stellar and Byteball. I immediately sold the airdropped tokens and increased my bitcoin holdings by 3%. But I don't think Coinbase should be required to support Stellar or Byteball just because they did airdrops to Bitcoin holders.

Byteball in particular seems like just some guy's random project and only has value because of the current investment bubble in anything that looks like a cryptocurrency. I wouldn't trust it to be secure or work properly. What if Byteball is just a huge scam, and the creator can secretly mint tokens at will? Now Coinbase is participating in a scam!

<comment><USER3> Yes, Coinbase should be required to support disbursal for every one, with the proviso that it either passes a certain price or passes a number of customers who want to withdraw it.

<comment><USER5> Why? By using Coinbase you are saying, "I don't want to hold any bitcoins myself, I want a bank to hold some value, denominated in BTC, on my behalf". For all depositers care, Coinbase might have zero Bitcoins issued before the fork.

It's like depositing a dollar to a bank, and then finding out that it had been signed by Andy Warhol in invisible ink and asking for the specific dollar back. Sorry, you shouldn't have deposited in a bank. You can get _a_ dollar back, but not the same one you deposited.

What you're looking for is more like a safety deposit box for Bitcoins. That's a whole separate product, with a different fee structure.

<comment><USER6> Let's say there is a court case where the judge awards all shareholders of AAPL $100 of compensation for every share held (It's to the shareholders, but not the company, because the court case involved shareholders vs management). The government sends $100 per share to each registered holder. Your investment fund is the registered holder of AAPL securities instead of you. Do you get $100 per share that was held on your behalf, or do the operators of the investment fund get it?

<comment><USER7> Isn't that just a dividend at that point? In the real world investment funds have fairly complex dividend rules (how much is reinvested in the fund, how much is skimmed for fund manager fees, etc), and regulations have managed to force such funds to disclose all of those policies up front (prospectus) and keep them up-to-date.

In the other fork in this discussion thread, the banking analogy: we're talking about an exotic interest payment of sorts. Again here, banking regulations require banks to disclose interest rates and payment details and management fees up front for accounts. But banks in the real world are largely allowed to reap the majority of profits from an investment that goes well, and doesn't have to apply much if any of that back to the savings accounts from which it utilized stored funds to fund that investment.

Which is to say that Coinbase may be doing nothing wrong according to either real world analogy, with the big difference being the "wild frontier" of existing in an under-regulated space with fewer up-front disclosure guarantees.

<comment><USER6> Both this and dividends are payments to shareholders but this is different because it's not funded by the company itself. It's a third party electing to pay every shareholder. Also, dividends are regular events, but getting a new asset that can be traded is not.

<comment><USER7> I guess that depends too on what you think "the company" is in this case, going back to struggling with whether or not this analogizes to a stock split or not.

<comment><USER6> In the AAPL example, it's not a stock split.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Coinbase is in a bad situation here. If they set a precedent that all BTC forks will be available to their users, then they open themselves to some pretty obvious DOS attacks.

10 new "bitcoins" could fork every day. Are we really going to expect coinbase to support them all? That's absurd.

I think it's pretty obvious that they're going to just issue the BCH to people eventually.

Here's another thought experiment: I am a now-extremely-wealthy bitcoin early adopter, and I am so happy at bitcoin's success that I am going to distribute $100 of USD cash per bitcoin to every person who can show me that they own a bitcoin.

To claim your $100, send me a Self-addressed-stamped-envelope proving your bitcoin ownership, and I will mail you back the cash.

Does coinbase have an obligation to send a bunch of SASEs to me? Are the coinbase customer's "owed" that $100?

I personally don't think so. I think that's the tradeoff you're making by having coinbase securely store your coins for you.

<comment><USER9> As one of the btc nouveaux rich, help me understand something I see reoccurring among my other btc-rich friends. Generally, when you're up big (and in some cases extremely wealthy), you diversify your investments in order to preserver your wealth. However, almost without exception my btc friends are such believers that they are holding on for the ride forever.

Is it just that the risk-averse were initially drawn to btc as a speculative vehicle? Or is it a matter of principle to hold forever?

<comment><USER10> I've seen the same -- I know someone who got in early to BTC, _then_ moved it all into Ethereum early, such that he has enough to comfortably retire today. But he won't cash any of it in except for a small amount each month to live on, while he lives rent free with others.

When I explain the logic of hedging and mitigating risk and locking in gains, he was insistent that the right strategy is to hold because it's going to go up some more, and he doesn't need the money now for any of his current objectives.

Come to think of it, I should at least consider that he's making it up, but I've met him several time and he's well versed in crypto and way ahead of the curve in learning about this stuff. Who knows?

<comment><USER11> This isn't that terrible. However its much much less risk and at worst only tiny bit less upside to put 34% in Ethereum, 33% in Bitcoin, and 33% in a basket of all else possible.

<comment><USER12> I'd suggest S&P index funds for the remaining third. If it's FU money already, taking out a third and putting into a known-decent investment because you don't need it right now should be a good way to ensure that you can actually retire whenever you'd like to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Note that Bitstamp, another large exchange, took a similar stance as Coinbase and has issued an update stating customers will receive their BHC balance:

[https://www.bitstamp.net/article/bitcoin-cash-our- position/](https://www.bitstamp.net/article/bitcoin-cash-our-position/)

For those of our customers who chose to leave their BTC on our platform at the time of the fork, we recorded their BCH balances for the timestamp of the last common block (block 478558), which is 1 August 2017, 13:16:14 UTC.

These BCH balances will be made available to our customers as soon as it is safe to do so. If and when the Bitcoin Cash system has been thoroughly tested and is sufficiently stable, we will then consider listing BCH. However, a series of technical, safety and regulatory requirements need to be met in order for this to occur, and it is still too early in the day to make realistic predictions about the timeframes involved.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's an interesting situation, but assigning liability to coinbase for this seems like it'd be a problem long term. Unlike traditional securities, there's nothing stopping me from going out and making my own fork tomorrow - and then would all exchanges be required to add support for that fork, too? Where do you draw the line?

<comment><USER15> This is not a random fork. This is a fork with almost $400 million 24 hour volume. Coinbase should allow users to withdraw their BCC, since they are sitting on a huge pile of BCC units, which belong to customers.

<comment><USER16> There's something I don't quite get (being a cryptocurrency newbie). Why can coinbase users not simply import their private key into some other wallet that supports both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash?

My understanding is that Bitcoin Cash recognises the old Bitcoin blockchain as their own up to the point of the fork. So as of Aug 1st all Bitcoin balances are Bitcoin Cash balances as well. Or is that not how it works?

<comment><USER17> Coinbase users don't have a private key for their Coinbase balance. They have an account with Coinbase, and Coinbase has their own private keys for their internal wallets. When you withdraw money from Coinbase, you're asking them to use their private keys to sign a transaction sending bitcoins to an address you specify.

What users could have done was withdraw their Coinbase balance into their own wallet, then they'd have coins on both forks. This had to be done before the fork happened, though. Now that it has, anyone whose coins were in Coinbase at the time of the fork is at the mercy of Coinbase.

<comment><USER18> Users of coinbase have no real right to complain because they have given up their control of their bit coin when they sign up for coin base. Unless this wasn't made clear by coin base at the beginning, i don't see how the law suit has any legs.

<comment><USER17> They're giving up control of their bitcoin for specific purposes. Coinbase can't just do whatever they feel like with it, any more than your bank can one day just declare "Hey, we decided to keep all of your deposits, FOAD, thanks."

<comment><USER18> may be i'm misunderstanding the nature of the bitcoin fork, but i see it the same as owning foreign currency. IF you banked some US dollars, you can't turn around and say you'd like to get it back out as Euros without paying some kind of exchange rate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just to clarify: bitcoin cash (BCH) is only _sortof_ worth $700. There aren't any mainstream exchanges accepting BCH deposits right now, so the market for BCH is limited mostly to people on kraken trading BCH with one another _there_ only.

The exchanges that are accepting BCH require 20 confirmations on your BCH deposit before they let you withdraw the BTC/XBT you traded them for. 20 confirmations right now would take multiple days. The exchanges offering this also seem to have pretty lax identity requirements, which is not a great sign.

<comment><USER19> Further, as of this writing, more than 24 hours after the first forked block was mined, we still don't even have those 20 confirmations!

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What I think all the press isn't making very clear is that to the best of my understanding for every Bitcoin you own, you get a Bitcoin Cash coin. There is no "conversion", it is free money for all BTC holders. Everyone who owned BTC, now owns BTC+BCC.

Of course if your BTC is not real, but is held by an exchange such as Coinbase, how you get your BCC isn't at all clear.

<comment><USER21> > Of course if your BTC is not real, but is held by an exchange such as > Coinbase, how you get your BCC isn't at all clear.

Your BTC should still be "real", but the exchange holds the keys instead of you. Your point stands about it being unclear how you would access your BCC. If you aren't allowed access to your BCC, there's nothing preventing exchanges from dumping the BCC for cash as far as I can tell from a purely technical standpoint (IANAL).

<comment><USER22> What if the exchange didn't actually hold the BTC but only had a line in the database with an "IOU xBTC"? Maybe at this point the exchange had used its stored BTC to speculate on an other market and attempt to increase its profets. Maybe they bought Ether or gold or Microsoft stock.

Normally it doesn't matter as long as the exchange is capable of sending you back the coins when you claim them but in case of a fork they'd have to buy two coins instead.

<comment><USER21> That's certainly a possibility. I was working from the assumption that Coinbase actually held BTC totaling the sum of all users account balances. Given the highly volatile nature of BTC and the nature of the BTC community (e.g. the conventional wisdom was to pull all funds from exchanges prior to the fork occurring), it seems quite irresponsible to not be holding funds as BTC.

I'm aware that exchanges in the past have behaved very irresponsibly, but I'm hoping that Coinbase is the exception here as a well known US-based company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Meanwhile, it's 12 hours since Bitcoin Cash actually mined a block.

The only reason the price is so high is because people can't make transactions to send their BCH to exchanges.

EDIT: My mistake. Originally said 20 hours. It's only 12.

<comment><USER24> The delay in mining was required to trigger drastic difficulty reduction (20%). More details at [https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6r33fz/difficulty_adju...](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6r33fz/difficulty_adjustment_triggered_at_0940_utc/dl24nbj/)

<comment><USER25> I'm confused. You're saying that the delay was intentional?

<comment> TD-Linux It's super unprofitable to mine BCH right now, at current exchange rates (assuming you could even sell BCH, which you can't). Miners stopped to wait for it to become profitable again, due to BCH's special difficulty adjustment. Details: [https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-cash-difficulty- adjust...](https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-cash-difficulty- adjustments-2ec589099a8e)

<comment><USER25> Okay that sounds more reasonable. My original thought was that it's not very decentralized if all the miners can agree to stop mining at any point. Economic reasons seem much more reasonable.

<comment><USER26> It's not very decentralized. According to [https://cash.coin.dance/blocks](https://cash.coin.dance/blocks) ten of the 16 blocks so far on this fork have been mined by "Genesis Block 269-273 Hennessy Road Wan Chai Hong Kong", 3 have been mined by ViaBTC, and only 3 by someone else. These two pools together have around 80% of the hash rate on this fork.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The problem both sides are trying to solve is that the system as a whole cannot handle the volume of transactions. Before the split, bitcoin handled 7 transactions per second, while Visa handles 50,000 transactions per second (I'm worrying these numbers from memory, so they might be wildly inaccurate).

Bitcoin Cash solves this with a larger block size. This is admittedly a short- term solution.

Bitcoin main, on the other hand, is moving toward SegWit, which introduces third-party middlemen. Service providers like Coinbase want this, because they get to be the middlemen.

But critically, SegWit breaks the only long-term advantage Bitcoin currently has over Visa. SegWit isn't decentralized. Bitcoin with SegWit still isn't as fast as Visa, so if you don't need decentralization then you should just use Visa. The only people who benefit from bitcoin with SegWit are the middlemen.

Decentralization is bitcoin's core value proposition. If you give that up to solve the scaling problem, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I don't know the long term solution to bitcoin's scaling problem, but I do know that I'm not interested in a centralized cryptocurrency.

<comment><USER28> You are confusing Segwit with Lightning network. Segwit is just a version that optimizes transactions. It's an extension of an unused opcode from the previous version, allowing previous nodes to view Segwit blocks as compatible, therefore only requiring a "soft-fork." Pro-Segwit people tend to be pro- Lightning, since it is not feasible to validate Visa-scale transactions in such an inefficient, centralized manner. This camp views Bitcoin more as a user-controlled store of value/bank account, still requiring a hierarchy of processors to handle day-to-day transactions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I wonder sometimes if the origin of coinage was similarly fraught with these sorts of challenges. The history of money exhibit at the British Museum is pretty awesome and they go over some of the 'coin scams' of the day like nicking bits off the coins and remelting them into new coins, melting coins and alloying them with other metals so that they 'felt right' but were diluted. People who no longer had to be 'landed' could steal enough coins and be 'rich'. Etc.

So back in that time when a new coin came out, I'm sure the money changers would spend good long time watching it to see how it was abused before they started accepting it as a 'real' coin.

Seems like much the same is true for blockchain currencies, they all need a bit of 'bake time' before you really understand both the demand and the risks associated with them.

<comment><USER30> Heck, you can see this in US coinage today. A quarter feels like about half the weight it was when I was a kid. The cost of the metal gets to a point where it doesn't make sense to use it in the currency anymore. For example, if the metal in a quarter was worth more than $.25, you could simply melt it down and sell it for more than the face value (assuming the cost of melting etc. could be brought down at volume).

<comment><USER31> > A quarter feels like about half the weight it was when I was a kid.

I felt the same, but as far as I can tell the current quarter composition weighs 84% as much as the heaviest quarter ever produced and 90% as much as any quarter made since 1873. The quarter's composition has only changed three times in the history of the United States.

<comment><USER32> I can think of another reason why a handheld object would seem bigger and heavier when you're young and small, as opposed to when you're old and big...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Coinbase did the right thing by warning their users beforehand that they wouldn't work with BCH.

They could have simply ignored it altogether and continue business as usual like nothing had ever happened.

Now after the fork, if people want to convert BTC to BCH, they have to go through a intermediary currency, just like many banks won't convert USD to $unknown_currency sometimes.

It doesn't surprise me there are talks about lawsuits, cryptocurrencies will have a hard time shaking off all the speculators and scammers.

<comment><USER34> Sure, 4 days before the fork and also locking up withdrawals and setting time limits.

I could accept Coinbase saying they dont plan on supporting it in the long term, but its kind of ridiculous to think that Coinbase can make a blogpost, and potentially appropiate millions of dollars of the coinbase users and thats fine because it was said before.

Not to mention that I've been particularly locked out of the platform for months due to the slow and fuzzy account recovery process, and that the delays on it didnt allow me to retreive the coins in time between the notice, the lockup and the account recovery process time.

So no, I dont find Coinbase's position at all tenable.

<comment><USER35> Perhaps you would like to switch to my exchange? [http://bitcoinsexchange.itmustbetrue.com](http://bitcoinsexchange.itmustbetrue.com)

<comment><USER36> I don't trust a site named bitcoin sex change

<comment><USER35> You can trust it. Its homepage has 3 columns full of text.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> For all the people saying this is totally fine and they warned people and they shouldn't have to support every single fork that comes along, I'd like to pose a hypothetical.

All forks are basically equivalent. If I fork Bitcoin today, my fork is just as legitimate as Segwit or Bitcoin Cash. The only differentiation is community buy-in and hashing power and similar fuzzy metrics.

Rather than sticking with Segwit and ignoring BCC, what if Coinbase had ignored Segwit and stuck with BCC? People would have lost 75% of their holdings, as measured in USD. Would you consider that to be OK?

Or worse, imagine if Coinbase created their own fork and starting from some certain date they only supported that fork, and it ended up being worthless because nobody cared about it. Coinbase would have basically wiped out all of their users. Would that be OK?

<comment><USER37> I don't follow Bitcoin other than on HN, but it seems to me that while they may both be legitimate, but they're still distinguishable, right? They may share the chain history, but only one of them produces blocks supported by pre-fork clients, right?

The situation doesn't seem analogous to me.

<comment><USER17> I _think_ it depends on how you do the fork. You can make a fork that generates blocks that the original clients can't validate, or you can make a fork whose blocks on the original chain, and are ignored just because they're not the tallest. If you somehow got a majority of the mining power on your side in that scenario, you'd supplant the "original."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Coinbase will either cave in on this or be sued and lose. Especially since they're sluggish about large withdrawals.

The real risk for Coinbase comes if they don't have 100% of the Bitcoins on deposit. If they don't have all those Bitcoins, like Mt. Gox, we're going to find out.

<comment><USER39> I can't imagine they'll continue to ignore the third largest cryptocurrency by market cap. Also it would be crazy for them to have encouraged their users to withdraw BTC prior to the fork if they were insolvent. I imagine it will all work out, though Coinbase loses lots of reputation points from me for by insisting on being so slow and reactionary instead of proactive like several other exchanges.

<comment><USER2> It won't be that large for long. Only reason why it's so high is the few places you can sell it aren't accepting BCH deposits; the only way you can sell is if you had BTC there prior to August 1. There's a ton of pent up demand to sell; once those exchanges allow deposits, there will be a ton of dumping and the price will fall substantially.

<comment><USER38> That makes it worse for Coinbase. They could be held liable for losses incurred because people couldn't access their BCH to sell at the top.

This is the sort of thing which may involve Coinbase in litigation over whether SEC and CFTC rules on "fails to deliver" apply to them. When a real broker does something like this, they're on the hook for customer losses.

<comment><USER2> No, they won't. You can't deposit into those exchanges yet, so if those Coinbasers had those BCH in hand, ready to sell, they wouldn't be able to anyways. In other words, if you didn't have BTC on those exchanges prior to August 1, BCH is an unsaleable asset, so that price is not relevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Sorry but what exactly is Bitcoin Cash? It seems like it's a fork in the BTC blockchain, but what prompted it and what gives it any sort of value, let alone a $12*10^9? Is it somehow technically superior? Is the move going to be to have BTC and BTC Cash exist side by side? Or are they going to fight for the market?

<comment><USER41> You can read up on it all over. But the short answer is Bitcoin Cash forked Bitcoin and has 8MB blocks, which would have eliminated congestion and lowered fees on Bitcoin during the past year.

Both sides (small Vs big) have economic incentives behind them, making the argument extra vitriolic. But larger blocks allow on chain growth, keeping it peer to peer without requiring any 3rd parties. (And the answer that 8x more bandwidth and storage makes it infeasible for enough people to run nodes rings false.)

<comment><USER42> 8 MB blocks = 1.15GB per day, or 420GB per year. Sure it might be feasible to run a node if you're in a first world country with fast internet and cheap storage (cost of living wise), but even in rural america, 34.5GB is a significant chunk of bandwidth. Not to mention they eventually plan to raise it to 32MB, which works out to 4.6GB a day or 1.63TB/year.

<comment><USER43> This whole pipe dream of little Jimmy running his full Bitcoin node on a raspberry pi in order to protect against the big bad bankers/government/whatever was never based in reality. Bitcoin was always destined to end up centralized. Either in the form of powerful companies controlling it (development, Lightning Network, etc) or large concentrated groups of miners.

Whichever path it ends up going down, centralization is guaranteed.

<comment><USER44> Well, there's a large middle ground between "little Jimmy's raspi's 4GB sdcard' and 'VISA's multi-PB datacenter'.

While there is certainly centralization pressure on mining, I do not agree that 8MB blocks make it impossible for everyone except for 'powerful companies' to run a full node, especially a pruned one. An enthusiastic early adoptor or investor holding, say, $100k of the token is more than capable of spending $500/yr to run a colo'd node. Would they prefer to spend $0 and host it at home? Probably. But the expense of a high-end VPS or low-end colo box is not totally prohibitive. We're not talking about more than a few rack units worth of HW.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> As an outsider, the remarkable thing about this to me is that one can (for now) sell the same bitcoins twice, right? If I own 1 bitcoin pre-fork, I can sell it for $2700 and then sell the exact same bitcoin again as Bitcoin Cash for $700. Crazy.

<comment><USER46> Well, you could if there was any practical way to sell the bitcoin cash version at the moment. I personally think it likely that once you can, you'll be lucky to get $7 for one.

<comment><USER45> If there's no practical way to sell bitcoin cash, where does the $700 valuation come from?

<comment><USER47> The handful of smaller exchanges that support Bitcoin Cash gave everyone who had Bitcoins on their exchanges at the time of the fork an equal balance in Bitcoin Cash, and it's that relatively small amount of on-exchange BCH that people have been trading. (I think one exchange allowed trading before the fork even happened, and just required people to have both BCH and BTC in order to make withdrawals before the fork.) Actual on-chain Bitcoin Cash cannot be sold right now as it can't be deposited in any of the exchanges, and buying it is iffy too due to some of them not allowing withdrawals either. The price of Bittrex BCH has also generally been about 40-50% higher than BCH on the other exchanges for some reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Haha why is there "fiduciary" duty when Coinbase is not a bank, not a security agency, and not any type of share that people bought into (ie customers are not shareholder).

Coinbase can do anything they want!

Also, I suggest it's people's own fault for storing their bitcoins at a place that does not give access to their own private keys. This fork has been a long time coming. Everyone and their mother was warned to keep your own bitcoins in your own privately controlled wallet (entirely offline if possible) to weather this fork.

Anyone who cries that Coinbase didn't do whatever is being childish and deserves it.

<comment><USER49> >Coinbase can do anything they want!

That's no how laws work. Not even remotely. Thankfully.

Consider you order somebody (X) to transport your pregnant cow. At the destination the cow arrives. It's not pregnant anymore and X refuses to give you the calf because... well, because he can do anything he wants.

That's theft.

<comment><USER48> The difference is Coinbase clearly announced their position that they will NOT honour Bitcoin Cash ahead of time

[https://blog.coinbase.com/update-for-customers-with- bitcoin-...](https://blog.coinbase.com/update-for-customers-with-bitcoin- stored-on-coinbase-99e2d4790a53)

Basically, they said "if your pregnant cow gives birth, we will not give you the calf. If you want your calf, take your cow away from Coinbase and keep it on your own pasture!" And their customers heard it, said ok I'll keep the cow with you, and when the cow gave birth they cried foul.

Sheesh, this situation is 100% predicable because Coinbase announced it ahead of time.

<comment><USER50> The problem is they have a 48 hour timer on cold wallets. Which leaves you 2 days to move those coins and if you have a withdrawal limit of $10k but you had 20 BTC in cold storage you were only able to get ~4 btc out of coinbase in time.

<comment><USER48> This fork was foretold weeks or months ago. Sure, the precise timing of the fork wasn't known until July, but everyone has been talking about "bitcoin's gonna fork" for ages - even hit hacker news multiple times.

Bitcoin holders need to take responsibility for their own holdings, especially when there is no FDIC or any type of assurance that your coins are going to be your coins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I don't really follow these cryptocurrencies very closely.

I assume that Coinbase is sitting on keys/wallets that own Bitcoin belonging to their customers, which would mean that they are now also sitting on keys/wallets that own Bitcoin Cash. So could Coinbase short (some of) that Bitcoin Cash by selling it on other exchanges?

I read this statement from Coinbase: "If this decision were to change in the future and Coinbase was to access Bitcoin Cash, we would distribute Bitcoin Cash to customers associated with Bitcoin balances at the time of the fork." So as long as Coinbase bought back enough Bitcoin Cash to distribute it to customers at time-of-fork-value, they would be true to their word.

Or is there something that prevents Coinbase from even accessing the Bitcoin Cash associated with Bitcoin it is holding?

 _Edit: I 'm not trying to make any judgments here, I don't know enough. Just trying to understand._

<comment><USER43> You're more or less correct. Coinbase is sitting on the keys to customer wallets/funds. When the fork happened, those keys work both on the original Bitcoin network and the new "Bitcoin Cash" network. Which, apparently turned out to have substantial value (currently trading ~$650).

Coinbase made a colossal mistake in outright ignoring BCC and will likely get sued (and lose) because of it. If I had 10 BTC on CB and missed out on the opportunity to trade or sell $6,500 worth of free BCC I just got, I'd be mad too.

They need to act quickly before it goes to court. Someone else commented that they don't even need to support trading BCC, all they have to do is provide a way for customers to withdraw their BCC, and they're in the clear.

<comment><USER16> _> If I had 10 BTC on CB and missed out on the opportunity to trade or sell $6,500 worth of free BCC I just got, I'd be mad too._

But is that really what's going on? As I understand it, each BTC also became a BCC at the time of the fork, and owners can now decide on which network they want to use these units (CB users are not technically owners though). No free BCCs were distributed.

If I were to decide to move 1 BTC to a BCC wallet now, I would buy something worth $650 for something worth $2700.

That is my very tentative understanding at least.

<comment><USER52> This is confusing stuff, but there's no "deciding" if your coin is a BTC or BCC, the chain split and both exist now if you had a BTC pre-split.

The chains do not talk to each other in any way, so you can spend your BTCs and BCCs independently. So yes, free BCCs were given to everybody with BTCs.

Imagine it as if someone copied the entire history of bitcoin and just renamed it and started running on different nodes. That's basically what happened. If the bitcoin history showed you owned 10 BTC, then the renamed history shows you own 10 BCC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> This seems fishy to me. There's a huge divergence in the price between the various exchanges that claim to trade BCH[1], signaling that arbitrageurs are unable to deposit to/withdraw from the exchanges.

Many exchanges aren't even allowing BCH deposits, meaning that the price isn't connected to the Bitcoin Cash blockchain, since you can't sell these coins into the market. Right now there seems to exist multiple different BCH — one for each exchange — all of them with a different price because they're not joined by the coins on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.

[1] [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin- cash/#markets](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/#markets)

</comment><comment><USER54> So you needed to get 'your' BTC into a real wallet (and not an exchange) to be able to have pre-fork BTC that would act as BCH.

While similar to both currency and commodity, this is one of the situations where cryptocurrency acts as more of a fungible contract than either the currency or commodity. IANAL, but it seems to me that there isn't a whole lot of law written on that. I'd argue that Coinbase expended its fiduciary duty by warning their users of the fork.

Coinbase/kraken/et al., however, don't create/issue the cryptocoins, so it's probably a misnomer to call them exchanges. At best, they are brokerages.

Now say that a bunch of users decided to instruct their broker that's holding their security in trust to so assign the security to the user, and the brokerage sat on that transaction rather than perform the request in a timely fashion? I'd say that potentially counts as a whole host of other actionable events, depending on the intent of the brokerage operators. Not sure if I'd call that front running, but that sounds like a good start to investigate.

<comment><USER55> > I'd argue that Coinbase expended its fiduciary duty by warning their users > of the fork.

But people are arguing, and I think convincingly, that Coinbase didn't provide enough lead time after sending out the email announcing their decision.

Coinbase also essentially gets to pocket all the extra value which should reasonably have belonged to their customers.

IANAL either, but I have to imagine there are the beginnings of something like an unjust enrichment claim here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Soars to $700 because nobody who owns any is able to sell them. Trading is not open to the public except on one exchange right now, and while that exchange is holding a comfortable $350, it's also an unpopular and low-volume exchange - I'm guessing 90% of their users today made accounts today just to sell their Bitcoin Cash. I know I did.

Once Kraken, Bitfinex, Bittrex, and the other major BCH supporting exchanges are actually accepting deposits, I imagine we'll see the price take a nosedive.

</comment><comment> m-p-3 To be fair, as long as you do not have the private key to your wallet, you do not have complete control.

Whoever kept their bitcoin in a Coinbase wallet and wanted to use Bitcoin Cash, it was their responsibility to move them to a wallet they fully control in advance to the fork.

<comment><USER57> Coinbase put limits on how much BTC could be transferred out each day, and didn't respond to support requests to increase the limits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> 75% of the hashrate was just advertrolling. Which had the side effect of keeping the difficulty high. They should have forked Bitcoin and used a different PoW... Oh wait that's Litecoin.

[https://news.bitcoin.com/the-trading-center-in-hk-where- they...](https://news.bitcoin.com/the-trading-center-in-hk-where-they-mined- most-of-the-bitcoin-cash-blocks/)

<comment><USER50> LTC isn't a fork of the BTC chain but a fork of the BTC software BCH is a fork of both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Coinbase will likely allow users to withdraw their BCH, but not exchange it, so they'll have to go elsewhere. They did the exact same thing with Ethereum Classic (after the price dropped like 80% from the initial spike, no less), and they ended support for those withdrawals at the end of 2016. To handle this fork differently could invite another lawsuit.

</comment><comment><USER59> Some already mentioned this list showing some exchanges that currently offer the ability to trade BCH assets for BTC or fiat currency. [1]

Note however that due to low count of blocks currently being mined for BCH there is no chance for the exchanges to get enough confirmations for deposited BCH from any (private, non-exchange) wallet to safely confirm the deposit.

So the only BCH assets that are currently being sold are probably the ones that were granted by the exchanges to the people that did not bother to transfer their BTC credit into their self-controlled wallet previous to the fork.

I think this is also a reason why BTC assets seem to be a bit overvalued right now.

[1] [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin- cash/#markets](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/#markets)

</comment><comment><USER60> This experiment in crypto currency has made me see the value in fiat money, which is probably the opposite of the desired effect.

At the end of they day, these digital monetary schemes have become less of a currency and more of a commodity.

Can someone explain to me why I should be less jaded about crypto currencies?

</comment><comment><USER61> But seriously, people threaten to sue the exchanges everytime they go down from insane amounts of traffic during a dip or spike.

</comment><comment><USER62> > Coinbase has clearly stated the company is not taking customers' Bitcoin > Cash for themselves

So effectively, it's as if they just burned all of the Bitcoin Cash they were holding?

<comment><USER63> no - they're just not doing anything with it.

<comment><USER64> > _no - they 're just not doing anything with it._

"We're not taking it, we're just not giving it to you."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Its at $750 now [https://www.coingecko.com/en/price_charts/bitcoin- cash/usd](https://www.coingecko.com/en/price_charts/bitcoin-cash/usd) Crazy that it was trading at $1200 BTC all-time high 3 years ago

<comment><USER66> Careful, there are huge discrepancies between exchanges, due to the illiquidity and difficulty in creating transactions at this time.

Here is a list of exchanges that seem to be listing Bitcoin Cash (along with their prices):

[https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin- cash/#markets](https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/#markets)

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I thought that with Coinbase you really didn't "own" the coins. As in, if you bought a bitcoin via Coinbase you really didn't hold a bitcoin, you really just held a promise that Coinbase would give you a bitcoin at a later date. If that were the case, would they actually be liable for giving you anything related to bitcoin forks?

It's also not like they didn't give warning ahead of time either. If you really wanted to use BCC/BCH (whatever gets decided on) you could've just moved the funds out of Coinbase into an offline wallet and sent them back post fork.

</comment><comment><USER68> From the class-action lawsuit website "FAQ":

> _Coinbase allowed users to withdraw BTC prior to the hard fork_

> _The process of transferring Bitcoin can be complex and potentially very > risky even for experienced users. Additionally, creation of a new account or > wallet on a different exchange is often a lengthy and difficult process. > While Coinbase did suggest to users that they could move their BTC to a > different wallet in order to obtain BCH, the procedure can be seen as > prohibitive by a significant portion of users. Finally, many users reported > slow or non-responsive site when trying to move their BTC from Coinbase > prior to the lock-down that preceded the hard fork._

First, transferring founds from one wallet to another is trivial in Bitcoin, and in fact it is easier than any other money transfer method that I know of. Second, if it really was that difficult then why they are, at the same time, accepting donations using Bitcoin and Ethereum on the same website?. Third, "Bitcoin Cash" is an altcoin, and anyone can create a similar fork from the Bitcoin blockchain, should Coinbase support them all?? because that would be ridiculous.

I can not believe these people are serious...

<comment><USER69> I had to move my coins out of Coinbase last week and it was very scary. I had never moved coins before and I even though the process seems simple, I had very little confidence in what I was doing. Honestly, I almost just left the coins in Coinbase figuring losing 10% of value from BCH is still probably positive equity compared to my perceived risk of losing it all which felt between 25% and 50%.

<comment><USER68> What was the very scary part? you just need to copy and paste a Bitcoin address, it literally can not be simpler :) is it maybe the the alphanumeric hash that looks scary?

<comment><USER13> Handling a potentially large of money and keeping it secure? How to store the key? What happens if I loose my phone/computer? How can I protect myself from fire and theft? Which wallet to choose? How can I be certain I don't have a virus waiting to steal my coins? Did i copy my address correctly?

That's a lot of uncertainty for "it literally can not be simpler".

<comment><USER68> Being able to easily handle a potentially large amount of money is exactly the reason why Bitcoin was created in the first place, so you don't need to depend on entities like banks.

But even then, if you don't want to do that, there are other exchanges and online wallets that can do all that for you.

<comment><USER13> Uh, you literary did not respond to any of my remarks on why someone might find it scary.

<comment><USER68> But I did: if you read my comment you will see I literally wrote that you don't have to store the wallet yourself, just use some online wallet. Another option is a hardware wallet like Trezor.

What I don't understand is why would anyone who is so scared of using Bitcoin transfer money to Coinbase to buy Bitcoins. To me this is the same as withdrawing all your money from your bank while being super scared of having your own savings in cash at home.

<comment><USER13> No, that doesn't address the potential fear a customer might have.

And I didn't even mention the problems with an online wallet. Yes, you should fear online wallets.

<comment><USER68> To buying bitcoins on Coinbase (and almost any other exchange) one have to use their online wallet. Fear was not a decisive issue when you (fig.) decided to buy bitcoins, but for whatever reason it is now that you want to move them somewhere else?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> If the only difference between bitcoin and bitcoin cash is that bitcoin cash has larger block sizes (true?), why does bitcoin cash not go "back" to the bitcoin blockchain since it is now much longer and should also be a valid bitcoin cash blockchain?

<comment><USER26> Bitcoin Cash also has a rule that a specific block (the first one after a specific date and time) MUST be larger than 1 megabyte. If that specific block is smaller, it's not a valid Bitcoin Cash blockchain.

Since that specific block is smaller than 1 megabyte in the main Bitcoin blockchain (because the maximum block size for Bitcoin is 1 megabyte), the current Bitcoin blockchain is not a valid Bitcoin Cash blockchain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Does anyone know any exchanges that are selling BCC/BCH?

<comment><USER72> I found myself having my BTC assets copied to BCH on kraken.com, which I think is the best thing ever.

<comment><USER47> Having your BTC on the exchange split into BCH the time of the fork is the only way I'm aware of to get your BCH onto Kraken (or the other exchanges) because they're not currently accepting BCH deposits. Unless it's already on an exchange that supports it or you've got a time machine you're basically out of luck for now if you want to sell your BCH, and even then people have been having problems with the exchanges falling over.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Isn't this screaming for lawsuits in this thread driving the idea of an currency independent of any central authority ad absurdum?

</comment><comment><USER74> Without JavaScript, the article is a blank page, containing merely 'SEARCH' and '10:18 AM ET'. What's it say?

</comment><comment><USER75> Betting that this headline would be here today would have been a smarter investment than, well, anything really.

</comment><comment><USER76> People who bought BTC on Coinbase/Gdax _after_ the fork own the correspondent BCC also?

<comment><USER77> After the fork, BTC and BCH are distinct and independent. So buying BTC _after_ the fork would gives the buyer zero BCH.

<comment><USER76> So who owns the correspondent BCH (assuming that the seller was a coinbase user before the fork)? Coinbase? The previous owner?

<comment><USER78> Coinbase has the keys for them, they have stated that if they ever accessed those coins they would make them available to the wallet holders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> They had the opportunity to move their funds and plenty of notice.

<comment><USER80> And Coinbase was pretty good about getting pretty much all of the massive exodus of coins out of their system and out of cold storage in time.

And they were pretty explicit that they wouldn't be supporting the BCC chain. I get it people are upset about possibly missing out on money, but Coinbase handled this about as good as they could.

<comment><USER41> No they didn't. They could have offered withdrawals of BCC, eliminating all uncertainty. That would be handling it "best". Or even a clear policy as to under which circumstances they will offer BCC would be better. (If they said they'd do withdrawals if the price stays over 0.1BTC, that'd have placated a lot of people.)

Giving notice so as to not totally screw customers is sort of the least they could do. How they get any sort of praise for this is bizarre.

<comment><USER80> Even the exhanges that support just about every currency out there still don't allow deposits/withdraws of BCC right now. There really is a lot of uncertainty around this whole situation, and due to the nature of a split a mistake in one of the coins can cause the user to lose both of them. It's not an area that I want my services rushing into and making mistakes.

If I were in Coinbase's position, I'd make sure that I'm doing everything to fully support and secure the currencies that I officially support, and maybe support some forks later if there is massive demand or there are more stable/secure methods of handling it. I mean right now the biggest "wallets" for BCC are rushed, filled with bugs, and have significant issues in some areas.

If they had said "we will allow you to withdraw BCC" and they didn't allow it right away, people would be significantly more upset (rightfully so in my opinion). At least the way they handled it they clearly and publicly announced that if you wanted to deal with BCC, you should move your funds out of Coinbase, and they gave multiple notifications over multiple days about this.

And mind you, they did offer a clear explanation of when they will offer BCC, They won't. That's about as clear as you can get. They _might_ change that in the future, but you can't say they didn't warn you if they never do.

<comment><USER41> Allowing BCC withdrawal doesn't mean it has to happen day one. But they could have said "within x days we will offer BCC withdrawl". That is better than they did.

Explain how you'd lose both coins? (If you mean 'well they could rush a code change and lose all their money', yes that's a risk. They shouldn't rush it.) The BCC chain has 2 way replay protection (granted, late addition) - but if it didn't, then Coinbase should have actively moved coins on BCC to prevent replays.

And if they "might", then it's unclear. That's just saying they're going to wait and see if BCC is popular enough. Instead they should have defined criteria of what popular enough is, and that'd have put to rest people's concerns.

All I'm objecting to is that "they handled it the best", which is clearly not the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Not sure why there's so much hype. Of course the price is going to be up, there's not enough BCH to be traded so naturally the demand will cause the price to go up temporarily.

</comment><comment><USER82> Can someone please advice me whether its good to invest now or wait for sometime for it to settle?

<comment><USER83> None of us can see the future. I first got into bitcoin in early 2011. I have no rational evidence to support this, but my intuition tells me that bitcoin cash will not be the winner. Too much hassle to adopt, few exchanges currently supporting it.

<comment><USER84> but BCH/BCC is more like BTC was designed to be (everything is in the blockchain)... What is the hassle? more HDD space used up?

<comment><USER85> Most exchanges, wallets, miners, etc currently support BTC and designate it as the new Bitcoin. The switching costs are the big hassle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> I thought it was supposed to be a decenteralized peer to peer utopia. Now it all depends on Coinbase's whims.

<comment><USER87> Bitcoin does not equal coinbase. Two completely different things.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Tag – Clickable product tags on any image for shops, blogs and social - <AUTHOR> https://usetag.io <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN! I'm here to share my second ever SaaS product - Tag. Tag allows shops, bloggers and influencers to create images with multiple product tags. Users may add each image collection as a pop-up button on their website or share a URL to them via social media.

Your first collection is completely free and then goes to a $19.99/pm tier for unlimited and additional features such as an Instagram feed to show customers related images to that product. This feature is great for clothing shops wanting to show influencers wearing that look.

There is also integrated support for Google Analytics (UTM) to generate necessary parameters for tracking individual affiliates -- again great for businesses sharing collections with influencers.

Finally, Tag is aimed to be multi-use. I have put up a few examples of bathrooms, music merch, aquariums, Amazon referral links and beauty on the landing page.

Let me know your thoughts!

-Scott</comment>


Despite DNA, the Rapist Got Away - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-despite-dna-the-rapist-got-away.html

<comment><USER2> There are two major problems with this article.

First, the example of rape that it begins with is not just a rape, but an attempted murder (she survived only by sheer luck). Therefore, using it as an example of police and/or society not caring enough about rape, is simply wrong. One could equally argue that that particular anecdote shows that police and/or society don't care enough about murder, or the combination of rape and murder.

Second, the example is of a complete stranger attacking out of the blue. We know those are very rare; most rapes happen between people that know each other. To use an example of the rare kind is disingenuous. Especially when that fact is very pertinent: many rape kits are not tested because their contents are not interesting, as both prosecution and defense agree sex took place - the two people may have been in a relationship - but disagree on consent. It is in some cases rational to not spend the police's limited funds on a test whose result is already known.

With that said, there is a valid point: There are likely police that don't care enough about crime, especially in poor areas. And DNA testing is straightforward - raise enough money, force police to test them, and you might catch some criminals. It is important to do that. But the article argues the point in a poor and misleading manner.

</comment><comment><USER3> This article focuses on cases of rape in which DNA evidence did provide new information, though it's worth noting that there are a number of kits that are never processed because there is no need - the disagreement is not on whether the rapist and victim had sex, but on whether it was consensual or not.

I don't really know what percentage of cases this applies to, and I wouldn't be surprised if the data on this is fuzzy to begin with. But it's helpful to keep in mind because a large reason that so many rapists get away[0] is that it can be difficult to prove lack of consent, and the status quo is that justice system effectively defaults to assuming consent unless otherwise proven (at least in many cases), which has unfortunate consequences for both the victim and future victims.

[0] [http://www.davidlisak.com/wp- content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapei...](http://www.davidlisak.com/wp- content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf)

<comment><USER4> "...assuming consent unless otherwise proven..."

So the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

<comment><USER5> That seems consistent with the spirit of the legal system.

Added: That is, to skirt this basic mechanism would probably be worse for everyone than the temporary escape of a rapist. I say this as somebody who has experienced sexual abuse.

Another thing to keep in mind is that most rape and sexual assault is committed by people whom the victim knows personally, which makes the majority of cases much simpler to prosecute than this one.

Yet another thing to keep in mind is that although rapists tend to be repeat offenders, only a small percentage are "serial rapists". That is, they're rare like serial killers are. Those guys barely exist.

Note: there are replies to my comment which hackerne.ws won't let me reply to, my silence doesn't indicate an agreement or indeed a disagreement with any of the statements herein.

<comment><USER3> > Another thing to keep in mind is that most rape and sexual assault is > committed by people whom the victim knows personally, which makes the > majority of cases much simpler to prosecute than this one.

That's actually _more_ difficult to prosecute successfully. It's much easier when you have DNA evidence linking two people who otherwise have no connection whatsoever, and demonstrating that forcible sexual contact occurred despite the rapist claiming to be somewhere else at the time.

It's much _more_ difficult when the rapist is a relative who has plenty of opportunities to be close to the victim, plenty of alternative alibis or excuses, and (most importantly) plenty of leverage to emotionally blackmail the victim into not filing charges.

Rape can occur within marriage or domestic partnerships, and this is probably by far the most difficult to prosecute. The fact that the victim knows the rapist makes it _more_ complicated legally and logistically, not less. In an abusive relationship, it's considered a success just to get the victim out of the relationship at all, and if they're in an emotional state where they can still move on and function in life, that's an added bonus. In situations like these, trying to prosecute the rapist is a distant pipe dream.

> Yet another thing to keep in mind is that although rapists tend to be repeat > offenders, only a small percentage are "serial rapists". That is, they're > rare like serial killers are. Those guys barely exist.

I really don't understand where you draw the line between "repeat offender" and "serial rapist". If you look at the link I cited in the original comment, it provides data on the number of repeat offenders, which is already troubling enough to be of concern, regardless of whether it meets your unstated threshold of "serial rapist".

<comment><USER6> I don't normally like saying this, but why was this comment downvoted?

>I really don't understand where you draw the line between "repeat offender" and "serial rapist".

I don't know what microcolonel intended, but I see the distinction in who was raped. A repeat offender may rape only a single person, but multiple times. A serial rapist sound like someone who rapes multiple people.

<comment><USER5> I meant more generally that people don't tend to rape a second or third time, repeat rapists are not the common case.

Sorry if that wasn't clear, I was under the impression that serial rapist meant more than once. A series of two is a thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Only five states — Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Texas — require the testing of all rape kits,"

The story is about a rape in Illinois, and the kit wasn't tested, despite it being required. So i'm not quite sure of the relevance of this tidbit, since they go on to cite other statistics that show, essentially, "you can make whatever you want the law, it doesn't seem to help this".

IE they seem to include it to say that it's sad every state doesn't force testing, but go on to show it doesn't even seem to matter when they do!

<comment><USER8> The rape kit was made in 1991, and the illinois law (725 ILCS 202/5) was passed in 2010. Incidents like these were the reason they passed the law.

Addendum: If anything, the law actually helped solve a lot of the backlog problems:

[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-18/news/ct- rape-k...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-18/news/ct-rape-kits- update-met-20131217_1_arlene-hall-dna-evidence)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > and that's one reason we should routinely test rape kits

I don't get it, what else are are rape tests for if not testing? Why does this even need to be stated?

<comment><USER10> Making the victim feel good that "something is being done."

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wanted to find out what the statute of limitation for rape is in the USA, because under German law (20 years starting with the victims 18th birthday), the rapist could very well be punished. And found out, that each state has their own regulation. I am all for federalism, but 16/50 different rape laws?

<comment><USER12> It's not that different from all EU states each having their own criminal codes. Of course, there is no U.S. state as large as the UK, France or Germany, but you have multiple European states the size of some American states.

<comment><USER13> I assume you mean in population. Texas is almost as big as France, much bigger than Fermany, and Alaska is much bigger than any of them.

<comment><USER10> Old joke: if Alaskans get tired of hearing that Texas is the second largest state, they'll cut Alaska in half to make Texas third.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Maybe if the federal government showered billions of dollars on police departments for catching rapists and other violent criminals rather than locking up drug users or giving out free urban assault vehicles, we'd see different outcomes.</comment>


The Loom of Language (1944) - <AUTHOR> https://archive.org/details/TheLoomOfLanguage/page/n3 <comment><USER2> For those, like me, who had no idea what this was, here's the product summary from Amazon:

> Here is an informative introduction to language: its origins in the past, > its growth through history, and its present use for communication between > peoples.

> It is at the same time a history of language, a guide to foreign tongues, > and a method for learning them. It shows, through basic vocabularies, family > resemblances of languages―Teutonic, Romance, Greek―helpful tricks of > translation, key combinations of roots and phonetic patterns. It presents by > common-sense methods the most helpful approach to the mastery of many > languages; it condenses vocabulary to a minimum of essential words; it > simplifies grammar in an entirely new way; and it teaches a languages as it > is actually used in everyday life.

> But this book is more than a guide to foreign languages; it goes deep into > the roots of all knowledge as it explores the history of speech. It lights > up the dim pathways of prehistory and unfolds the story of the slow growth > of human expression from the most primitive signs and sounds to the > elaborate variations of the highest cultures. Without language no knowledge > would be possible; here we see how language is at once the source and the > reservoir of all we know.

[Source]([https://www.amazon.com/Loom-Language-Approach-Mastery- Langua...](https://www.amazon.com/Loom-Language-Approach-Mastery- Languages/dp/039330034X))

</comment><comment><USER3> Loved this book when I was college age</comment>


Dealing with Internet Trolls - the Cognitive Therapy Approach - <AUTHOR> http://shlomifish.livejournal.com/909.html <comment><USER2> I'm fairly certain I've dealt with Problem Children before that this approach would not work with. "Dr" John Grubor comes to mind, but that was ages ago.</comment>


The Mueller Report Can't Be Copyrighted, Is Flagged by Copyright Bots Anyway - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/takedowns/mueller-report-cant-be-copyrighted-flagged-copyright-bots-anyway <comment><USER2> While this doesn't seem to be DCMA, a question for the lawyers here on DCMA takedown requests. Given issuing a request require the requestor to make a "good faith" affidavit, if they're reporting something flagged by a bot that is obviously wrong like this if a human had checked, can it be used as evidence of bad faith & committing perjury?

<comment><USER3> While a false DMCA takedown request can be fined and ultimately punished with jail time, most of the casework on this has clear malicious intent. These are parties that send out a notice just for articles or posts that are critical of said party. In these cases, you had a human on one side knowingly filing a single false DMCA takedown.

[http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/consequences-of-filing-a- false-...](http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca- takedown-request/)

These are cases of programmers creating takedown bots with false positives. Do the programmers know that there will be false positives? Yes. Do they not make a good faith effort to prevent those false positives? Probably. Good luck proving this in court though.

<comment><USER4> This is an excellent example of why @qntm called AI "money laundering for responsibility":

[https://twitter.com/qntm/status/1030846375213379584](https://twitter.com/qntm/status/1030846375213379584)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Given there is a contentID system for explicitly copyrighted works, it seems insane that nobody involved in these systems has seen fit to do the same for explicitly public works.

<comment><USER6> These systems are good at picking up small portions of copyrighted works within some larger context, but to guarantee that 100% of a YouTube video or scribd document is in the public domain is a different problem.

For published works like the Mueller report, one wouldn't need contentID. Matching the document's hash would suffice.

<comment><USER7> A hash would still only work for the exact document. Suppose someone uploads a new version with a better table of contents, or with some added annotations [0]; now your hash no longer matches, while contentID probably will.

[0] Both things which _could_ be copywrited, but I'll assume will not trigger the actual flag.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The issue seems to be skewed incentive towards false negatives vs false negatives. If leaving false positives (materials being taken down based on a false claim) give much lower risk to the platform than false negatives (materials that should be removed but has not been removed), they would naturally prioritize reducing false negatives.

</comment><comment><USER9> How about some sort of legal punishment against scribd/youtube etc for false positives?

<comment><USER10> These companies aren't violating the law, at best they are violating their own policies in regards to the content they host.

<comment><USER11> Who defines what is a "violation" of their "own" policy? Or what the policy is exactly? Are there no repercussions if their "policy" is not directly reflecting the goals and intentions of original copyright law?

<comment><USER10> If you read the terms and services agreement for almost any company you'll find you agree to hold them faultless in these sort of issues. And you'll likely find that you've also agreed to arbitration in the handling of these matters.

I'm not sure though how you feel they are violating copyright law, can you go into more detail on that?

Because they basically have the right to remove any content they host at anytime, regardless of if it is copyrighted or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Well, the EU has just passed the Copyright Directive. That makes reading such articles both funny and terrifying.

</comment><comment><USER13> Is Scribd under any legal obligation to display content that users upload? I cannot find any in the Terms of Use.

I did find some terms that allow Scribd to remove content for any reason and terms which purport to limit any remedy for such removal to "Don't like it? Then don't use it."

12.1 Scribd. You agree that Scribd, in its sole discretion, for any _or no reason_ , and without penalty, may terminate any account (or any part thereof) You may have with Scribd or Your use of the Scribd Platform and remove and discard all or any part of Your account, User profile, _and any content_ , at any time and without notice to You.

12.2 You. Your only remedy with respect to any dissatisfaction with (i) the Scribd Platform, (ii) _any term of these Terms_ , (iii) any policy or practice of Scribd in operating the Scribd Platform, or (iv) any content or information transmitted through the Scribd Platform, is to cancel Your account and stop using Scribd.

[https://support.scribd.com/hc/en- us/articles/210129326-Gener...](https://support.scribd.com/hc/en- us/articles/210129326-General-Terms-of-Use)

7\. Removal of Content. Regardless of which purchase option You have selected, Scribd reserves the right to modify or withdraw at any time any Scribd Commercial Content from access by You at the request of its publisher _or for any other reason_.

[https://support.scribd.com/hc/en- us/articles/210129486-Scrib...](https://support.scribd.com/hc/en- us/articles/210129486-Scribd-Paid-Access-End-User-License-Agreement)

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't understand why people use something like scribbd to host a PDF a few megs in size and then complain about takedowns.

Host yourself. The operational and BW cost for hosting static content is ridiculously low.

<comment><USER15> I believe that the particular report was 139MB of scanned printouts of a redacted PDF. Depending on your site hosting, I imagine it could actually become somewhat expensive if it turns out to be popular.

<comment><USER16> This. 10,000 downloads would already be a terabyte of bandwidth

<comment><USER17> Which is <$100 even using something with overpriced bandwidth like EC2.

And there is always BitTorrent if you don't even want to pay that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> We need a reform. One that would remove the idea that one can collect royalties from the work. Royalties are incompatible with the way information is disseminated.

Authors don't collect royalties. Absolute majority of authors don't live of royalties. Lets just kill this monstrosity.

If your business model comes with huge externalities for the society as whole... your business model must go.

</comment><comment><USER19> Can we not turn this against the record industry's own videos? Genuine question.

<comment><USER17> 1) Doing this purposely seems like a good way to get on the wrong end of some legal process, and is exactly the sort of thing that would end up being somehow fixed in a way that only works for Hollywood and not anybody else.

2) The major studios don't really _use_ YouTube, and Netflix and Hulu and Spotify don't use ContentID. If the entire site was destroyed along with all of their smaller competitors that do use it, they would only celebrate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Scribd is a massive piracy site that should be sued into oblivion if there is any justice. Only a very small amount of content there is uploaded with the owner's permission.

<comment><USER21> It's almost always inferior to any other way to distribute a legit free PDF.

Which is honestly nothing against Scribd--there's just no point to using an e-book service to distribute a file every modern browser can open natively.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > it is impossible for a copy of the Mueller report to be infringement since > it cannot be copyrighted

This is specious reasoning. The report could contain an independent copyrighted material, like a previously published poem verbatim, "used with permission". So copies could be automatically flagged for infringement of that material.

The "public domain" document is tainted.

<comment><USER23> I am not a lawyer - I would appreciate it if a lawyer could confirm or reject my understanding - I think it's actually the opposite (but take this with a grain of salt):

This would be a derivative work of the material it is quoting. Derivative works aren't protected by both the original copyright and the copyright of the person who prepared the derivative work, only the latter. Since the US government does not gain a copyright on derivative works that means the entire derivative work is in the public domain. You can make copies of it, distribute it, prepare further derivative works (such as cutting out everything except the poem! Though maybe not a good idea to test that plan), etc.

The only exception to this would be (I think) if the report was created in violation of copyright law, but there's no way that this would not be found to be fair use. All the standard factors are in it's favor. There is a strong public good in it's favor.

<comment><USER10> Firstly not a attorney, but have spend the last several years working hand and hand with a large number specifically related to these issues.

My take away is as follows

Including copyrighted material in its entirety and original form in a different work does not make it derivative. It's original copyright stands.

A quick requirement for derivative work.

The derivative work must demonstrate transformation, modification or adaptation of the original work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright.</comment></comment></comment>


Chinese sanitation workers have to wear location-tracking bracelets now - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/6/18298562/these-chinese-sanitation-workers-have-to-wear-location-tracking-bracelets-now <comment><USER2> The article says that the bracelets would audibly prod the workers to "keep working" when it detected inaction longer than twenty minutes. Maybe The Verge could employ this technology to spur on journalists who scribe seven sentence articles.

<comment><USER3> LOL, it is a low calorie article. An org like China Labor Watch probably has more in depth data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Memphis sanitation worker: "I am a man. (on strike, expecting better pay and working conditions)"

Nanjing sanitation worker: "I am a scab. (never to strike, accepts any degradation)"

Of course, that voice telling the workers to get on and hustle has never known the stench of rotting trash.</comment>


DailyMail: fifty percent drop in traffic after Google update - <AUTHOR> https://www.seroundtable.com/dailymail-hit-google-core-update-27690.html <comment><USER5> Having a brief look at their traffic on Ahrefs; They've lost a bit of traffic, but it doesn't look like it's halved: 59 million to 49 million. [https://i.imgur.com/fB1z5aq.png](https://i.imgur.com/fB1z5aq.png)

Having a look at what their organic search movements are, most of them are just for celebrity names. Here's a screenshot: [https://i.imgur.com/NvWT0Y3.png](https://i.imgur.com/NvWT0Y3.png)

It seems in this update, and Google is putting a lot less emphasis on the word count. Instead, they are putting more emphasis on having the exact keyword in the title tag and coming from a domain with a lot of authority.

Google could have also struck DailyMail with a Manual Action (aka a penalty for breaking their TOS) which would vastly affect their organic traffic. Manual action is explained here: [https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175?hl=en](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9044175?hl=en)

<comment><USER6> > _They 've lost a bit of traffic, but it doesn't look like it's halved: 59 > million to 49 million._

The article is _very_ sloppy about this, with a clickbait framing, but the actual claim is "we saw a massive drop in Search traffic from Google (lost 50% of daily traffic)", which I'm almost certain means 50% _of Google search traffic_.

<comment><USER5> Yes - Ahrefs only measures Google search traffic.

If you were to use something like Similarweb, it will give you a estimate of overall traffic from all platforms: [https://www.similarweb.com/website/dailymail.co.uk](https://www.similarweb.com/website/dailymail.co.uk)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This entire conversation is about the Daily Mail itself, when the facts of the story are that in a forum post with no replies, the SEO person at the Daily Mail complained that traffic dropped for a whole 2 days.

Numerous sites are impacted when Google's algorithms change. The Daily Mail is not popular because of Google, it's popular because it's a low-brow tabloid and there are many people who love low-brow tabloids.

<comment><USER6> The story is also a clickbait headline from an SEO-discussion website, who presumably know a thing or two about driving traffic to themselves. Despite the headline and lede, this isn't a 50% traffic drop for the Daily Mail, it's a 50% drop in Google search traffic specifically.

Without some more context, like which other sites this hit and what's changed (ranking drop? fewer search matches?), this is basically a non-story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Google's aim in recent changes is to promote quality, reputable content rather than tabloid, 'fake news'/propaganda and content farms.

If we take a quick look over at DailyMail.co.uk, one can quickly identify where the problem might be located.

<comment><USER9> "reputable content" as defined by GOOG's own ideological bias

<comment><USER10> Not solely.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia- bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website)

> The editors described the arguments for a ban as "centred on the Daily > Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out > fabrication".

I'm surprised it took Google 2 years to get around to the same viewpoint.

<comment><USER11> Trusting Wikipedia as a source here? Pretty ironic. Of course the Guardian (a competitor) was happy to quote them as a reputable source.

<comment><USER12> The editors of an encyclopedia talking about their own rules is literally a primary source. That's what a primary source _is_.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, surely if there's anyone who knows which sources are worth using, it would be the editors of the world's biggest encyclopedia?

<comment><USER11> >The editors of an encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia is a point here, it's a crowdsourced publication that purports to be a neutral source, despite well documented conflicts among the editors.

<comment><USER13> I would rather have conflicts among editors than no conflict whatsoever, as the latter suggests that they all agree on how to bias things. Conflict is a sign of trustworthiness here.

Even a cursory glance at how wikipedia is actually structured vs how early 2000s news media and schools portrayed it will lead you to the conclusion that it's a significantly better primary source than any other encyclopedia currently available.

The sort of stuff in wikipedia that traditionally might be slightly biased (current events, very new political stuff) doesn't even appear in other encyclopedias until a decade later, so that has to be worth something as well.

The number of eyes actively vetting and checking and re-checking every change on a moderately trafficked wikipedia page probably dwarfs the total number of editorial staff for even the largest of encyclopedias. The average accuracy is just going to be higher in a situation like that, even with people occasionally defacing pages.

<comment><USER11> >I would rather have conflicts among editors than no conflict whatsoever, as the latter suggests that they all agree on how to bias things.

You have got to be kidding me, how can you say that with a straight face? [https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest- edit-...](https://www.vox.com/2015/9/17/9345487/wikipedia-lamest-edit-wars)

<comment><USER13> The Vox article agrees with me? Better to have dissension and discourse rather than a bunch of editors from the same camp, whatever camp that may be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am conflicted. I think that Daily Mail deserves it all. At the same time I don't think it should be Google's duty to limit the reach of a bad publication by means of algorithmic changes to its opaque Search product.

<comment><USER15> You think it should be googles duty to promote bad publications by means of the algorithm it generated?

<comment><USER11> It should be their duty to be transparent about the matter.

<comment><USER16> And how to you propose this be done?

Google has to order its results somehow. How do you propose they order them?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> nearly all news sites, from infowars to nytimes, are borderline sharecroppers off the daily flow of traffic from google search. its usually only a fifth to a third of their traffic, but its their single biggest source usually. the cornerstone of the business.

daily mail just basically got evicted by the landlord. I'm super curious to see where they drew the line.

</comment><comment><USER18> The Google UI seems to have changed also. No more numbered pages you can navigate back and forth, just a button to reveal more search results on one page. So for instance, you can jump straight to the "long tail" of a search for the less important results; you have to click through umpteen "more results".

</comment><comment><USER19> Some people so badly want Google to be a source of truth, and not just a source of information.

Be careful what you wish for...

</comment><comment><USER20> How many trackers and other third party scripts are on daily mail pages?

<comment><USER21> The last time (~6 months ago) I was on one of their article pages (via direct link in a new tab, not via their homepage), the uBO icon immediately showed something like 50 or 60 elements blocked.

That value rose every other second as I scrolled, so yeah...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Any ideas _why_ it lost so much traffic exactly?

<comment><USER23> it's a pearl-clutching misogynistic and *phobic tabloid. wikipedia doesn't allow citations from them either

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia- bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website)

[https://stopfundinghate.info/2018/02/21/online- advertisers-d...](https://stopfundinghate.info/2018/02/21/online-advertisers- daily-mail/)

<comment><USER24> Alright sounds good. By the way where do we go to find out whether a publication is misogynistic and *phobic? We need to make sure we keep the internet safe!

<comment><USER25> This is one of the more reputable catalogs of hate groups, including internet publications:

[https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist- files/grou...](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/groups)

They've been around much longer than the internet, fwiw.

<comment><USER26> You're kidding, right? SPLC is a virtue signal cesspool run by con men that has been forced to retract multiple smears in the last year alone, including smearing many "left leaning" journalists as Russian spies and fascists.

[https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/09/update- multip...](https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/09/update-multipolar- spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's the premier middle-class British pastime to be forever proclaiming how much you hate the Daily Mail.

A: No, _I_ hate it more.

B: No, _IIII_ really do despise it more.

C: Oh my gawwd, the Daily Mail. Groooan!

<comment><USER28> The Mirror, Star, Express, etc used to be the 'awful' lower-class newspapers.

Times change. Or perhaps there's some kind of 'class inflation'.

But really, today's Mail is all celeb ad-photorials(tm) and drivel.

<comment><USER29> I always perceived that it was split along class lines (this is the UK, after all).

The true working-class tabloids were the Sun, Mirror, and Star.

The Mail and the Express seemed to be more for people who were doing a _little_ better, were often (correspondingly?) a bit older, but were rooted in right-wing/small island mentality, and who would probably have been uncomfortable with the image/implications of moving to a broadsheet.

<comment><USER28> Ah yes, forgot the Sun! But true, the Mail was always targeted at the 'aspiring', 'twitching lace curtains' class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Good!

It's a worthless rag full of content designed to get a rise from its readership, with scant regard for the truth.

</comment><comment><USER28> To me that demonstrates the click-baitish nature of the content that this publication pump out

</comment><comment><USER31> This couldn't happen to a more deserving publication.

<comment><USER32> All the web sites that go with British newspapers (and for all I know, other newspapers in the world, but I live in Britain) have been doing grey-SEO stuff that's bound to get hit by algorithm changes.

By "grey SEO" here I'm thinking of articles that are intended to get "natural" traffic as a result of people asking questions, e.g.

"When is the new Avengers movie out?" "Which channel is The Crown on?" "Was Michael Jackson a Paedophile?" "Who is that girl from Stranger Things?"

An encyclopedia is often the natural result for questions like these, or some sort of specialist fact database, IMDB for example, or a TV channel's own listings site. But the newspapers decided they could get some of those clicks. If some people who were wondering if that's the same girl in Godzilla (yup) click through and see four adverts and read speculation as to whether Kate Middleton hates her brother-in-law's new wife (probably not, also who cares?) that's more profit for the publisher.

Anyway, Google's thing has always been trying to put the answers you wanted at the top. In defiance of Babbage's oft-cited remark, Google wants to give you the answer you were looking for even if you ask the wrong question. This may often mean that a Daily Mail article trying to get you to click through to more slop about nothing is NOT the best answer when you asked a mundane question and Google may tweak their algorithm to prefer say, the Netflix video trailer for this season of Black Mirror, higher than a Daily Mail article speculating that Charlie Brooker might be gay when users ask it "When is Black Mirror new series?" even if the Daily Mail team worked really hard setting metadata tags and fiddling with the layout.

<comment><USER33> > "When is the new Avengers movie out?" "Which channel is The Crown on?" "Was > Michael Jackson a Paedophile?" "Who is that girl from Stranger Things?"

What I'm increasingly noticing in the results for these is title:"Avengers movie release date", body:"No release date has yet been announced for the Avengers movie" (but not in the search engine snippet).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> So is google a publisher or a search engine?

<comment><USER35> google is an index of information sorted by what it thinks is most relevant to the searcher, and always has been. pagerank was a information quality and importance evaluater. pagerank is what made google google.

I would argue that dailymail fails the SPIRIT of the original pagerank, even if its heavily linked to, the information they hold is paparazzi stew. They have every right to choose to derank something so worthless.

<comment><USER36> worthless to who?

seriously, who decides what I value? Should I decide for you what is worthless?

don't dismiss this is as a flippant comment because people with this belief will walk us straight into the hands of the political class who will jump at the opportunity to tell us what is and what is not.

You can be damn sure they will use all the marketed tested FUD to have people climbing aboard. Punch all the right buttons, have the correct statement to any challenge, and next were back the day of where the message is wholly managed. We already see regimes which operate this way but many just laugh it off "THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN HERE", well this is how you get there , by giving the power to decide to someone else.

<comment><USER29> Google's search is only valuable if it gives us the best results in response to our keyword. There has and will always be a degree of choice made by Google's algorithm in this, even for searches for things that have an objectively right/wrong answer. It has to prioritise somehow.

In this case, if a news site ranks high in metrics that Google's algorithm considers problematic --sensationalist, click-bait, heavily optimised, not mobile-friendly, whatever-- wouldn't you prefer it prioritised sites which didn't hit those metrics?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Once again the problem is centralization - centralizing the power in the hands of one corporation with one algorithm because they have all the good software and hardware.

Facebook - <USER2>

Google - <USER3>

Amazon - <USER4>

And so on.

<comment><USER38> It's also the case that folks like those that run the Daily Mail have over- specialized their revenues in ways that depend on Google. They didn't have to do this, but they chose to.

I doubt it will change, but hopefully it'll be a lesson to other folks in the business.

<comment><USER37> This seems a lot like the "personal responsibility" talk from Republicans when informed that many people are struggling. Well they made their choices!

Hmm, could it be that the system is set up in a certain way that most would make these choices? And does that benefit society?

If DailyMail had not made those choices but someone else did, then THEY wouls be the subject of the news.

Unless you are saying that there is absolutely no reason why there is a monopoly in those areas.

<comment><USER38> You seem to believe that these two points of view are mutually exclusive. I used the word "also" intentionally because I believe they are compatible.

I firmly believe we can and should build non-exclusive non-silo search engine options. Data salary for general search use is probably a bad thing overall. I'm excited to see a world where competitors to the major search engines that are more open exists.

But at the same time, we're not talking about individual consumers. Individual consumers don't have much market power and dust can't express much choice. The daily Mail is a massive corporation and a massive publication. They could have made other choices, and elected to use other business models. They didn't. And to be honest I don't have much sympathy for them in this. If a single source of revenue dominates everything else that you do you are not an effective news organization. You're probably not even effective corporation is a whole, as most people who run companies Tell you not to overconcentrate your income in one source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I see a lot of people citing their personal dislike of the site as a reason to wipe it from polite society. Why? What test did it fail and where is the evidence? Can you apply that test evenly to other websites?

Am I the only one here that sees these types of moves as a problem and doesn't dismiss them purely because of my own personal attitudes toward the content?

<comment><USER29> Well, we don't know why it happened. If it's pure censorship, sure, that's a bad thing.

But if it's just that Google is updating its algorithm to pay less attention to sites which are heavily optimised/click-bait/sensationalist... that's not so bad.</comment></comment>