3 ms·
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2979603 https://news.ycombinator.
by subsystem 14y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5335271
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2979603 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2979603
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2281694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2281694
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1491259 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1491259
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5315118 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5315118
- pbreit 14y agoAll these are different from a random person tossing in a "what's the problem with [x]?"
- SilasX 14y agoOh, definitely. Those are all positive news about a YC company. That's why it's totally kosher and no moderator would ever dream of stripping off the association. This article, in contrast, is about a company potentially looting users' bitcoins due a mysteriously long response time and users being unable to withdraw. Obviously mentioning the YC connection is completely inappropriate. We need to remember here, that this site is solely for the celebration of YC companies, not to point out that YC potentially funded a bad apple that's screwing it's customers. Please, use the YC association correctly.