Hacker News Reader

Comment by uncomputation | Hacker News Reader

Despicable on all levels. Not only was there nothing resembling an offer even made, much less a "contract" signed, Jump also very well knows that 50k for a domain like that is a steal and are more than happy to try and pry it from an old man's hands even "requesting and receiving a preliminary injunction to freeze the asset." I'd much rather the domain be in the hands of this guy with his cool JavaScript clock than these leeches any day of the week.

View on HN

>I'd much rather the domain be in the hands of this guy with his cool JavaScript clock than these leeches any day of the week.

Same. I'm also really curious now how the clock will handle changing the text for the current day, from an animation point of view.

> his cool JavaScript clock

Is it his? Fantastic if so.

The code for that 'did the rounds' back in the early 00s. I had it on my site for a while, but changed the code so the outer text spun like a sort of bouncing helix around the outside of the clock face. I never did know where the code came from though, and I had a note in my page source saying "Is this yours? Is it OK that I'm using it?"

Looking at this page's source it seems to have come from "www.rainbow.arch.scriptmania.com", though that site appears dead. It was referenced from an HN comment as recently as 2018 though...

Well, whoever you are rainbow.arch.scriptmania.com, thanks for the clock and the memories. I haven't seen that in nearly 20 years.

> Jump also very well knows that 50k for a domain like that is a steal

I'm not up on domain name pricing. What would you estimate the fair price to be?

Here are some links listing recent domain sales:

https://enaming.com/recent-sales

https://www.dnjournal.com/ytd-sales-charts.htm

https://www.namecheap.com/blog/top-domain-sales-of-2021-so-f...

Wormhole is a cool sci-fi word. A fun word that most people know and don't already associate with another brand. It's high tech, it's something at the frontiers of science, it's fast and futuristic. Easy to spell, easy to remember, and easy to build a new brand around.

"Galaxy.com" recently went for $1.8m, apparently, and that's like a better version of "wormhole".

Comparing to recent sales, I'd say Wormhole could easily go for $800k+. With the right buyer, maybe upwards of $1m.

This has nothing to do with the fact that wormhole is "a cool sci-fi word" that's "easy to spell, easy to remember, and easy to build a new brand around."

Jump wants this domain because its Wormhole Network already exists and is extremely valuable. Jump does not want this domain because it has good resale value. Jump is not in the business of flipping domains.

So your argument here is actually that wormhole.com should be worth way more to Jump than to any other generic buyer, since they have already built up a product around the name of a domain they didn't control.

I think $50,000 is fair as a matter of fact. It's not talked about much anymore. I don't know the other details of the case, just that...for wormhole.com...$50,000 is not out of the question. But the fact it's owned by Carl Sagan means it's a marketing op to say you bought it from him, at a good price, not a fair price.

They could bump it up to make both parties better off, and in fact Jump Trading like the name wormhole specifically and directly because of science popularization primarily due to Carl Sagan. Like write a better payment on a giant check and take a bunch of pictures, come on.

Or what? Does anybody at Jump Trading have old dry-ink manuscripts analyzing actual wormholes in the astronomical sense?

EDIT: on reflection the guys they hire actually could have dry-ink manuscripts, in grad school. But not within Jump Trading.

It's owned by a Carl Sagan fan and not Carl Sagan himself. Carl Sagan passed away in the 90s. I'm not sure why you're saying $50,000 is fair as a matter of fact and what you mean by dry-ink manuscripts.

Oh I see.

If you have $1million in your own personal accounts, I'll offer you $50k for all those accounts and the funds there in, deal?

> old man

Meh. He’s the same age as the current US president and rather close to the prior. Warren Buffet, sharp as a tack at 91, just wrapped up another Berkshire Shareholder meeting. Jump appears to be very much in the wrong here, but I don't think we need to characterize this as the domain owner is feeble-minded or out of touch: the guy has owned a domain since 1994.

>but I don't think we need to characterize this as the domain owner is feeble-minded or out of touch: the guy has owned a domain since 1994.

similarly I don't think it's reasonable to compare every 79 year old with two people that have had the most privileged lives imaginable.

it's extraordinarily common to live to a healthy old age when you have teams of people coordinating your schedules, traveling teams of chefs and nutritionists available to define your diet to the gram, and an accompanying traveling medical staff wherever you may need to go.

79 years old for those of us that had less glamorous lives can be * a lot * older than you'd imagine when comparing them to others -- to such a degree that age as a comparison is wildly speculative at some point.

> define your diet to the gram, "Buffett's diet of sugary soda, junk food, and limited vegetables has reached legendary status." https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-diet-2017-10

> traveling teams of chefs and nutritionists available to Almost. He was famously cared for by his second wife whom his first wife set him up with, thinking that he could not take care of himself.

Do you think that nutritionists & chefs are the reason the US senate has so many lively old people?

I would say it's just lucky genetics. Anyone who doesn't develop dementia and/or heart disease or something like that by age 70, is likely to live a very long time.

It's not genetics, it's wealth. In addition to better nutrition, wealth affords you better, proportionately cheaper healthcare. It's a predictor for lifespan and healthspan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/science/rich-people-longe...

You're the one equating "old man" to "feeble-minded" or "out of touch". That implication wasn't there in the comment you responded to.

How else am I to interpret the fact they stated the person's age in the title? I came to the comments specifically looking for discussion on why the person's age is relevant. To me, specifying the age like this is an attempt to pull at the heart strings of some poor defenseless senior citizen being victimized.

It's just another example of an asshat corporation doing asshatery. Would the story be any different if it was a 59yo? 49yo? 39yo? No. Corp is an asshat in every example age offered.

"pry it from an old man's hands" paints a very clear image without using explicit wording.

No it doesn’t. An old man may well be less likely to want to spend a decade defending against litigation than a young one.

I guess being called an "old man" has been around forever.

When I was younger my version of an old man was anyone over 30. I kept upping it the older I got.

I used to throw around the "Don't trust anyone over 30."

Now that I'm much older, I still don't trust most old adults, and I'm one now.

Looking back my definition of old is more akin to being wealthy, sneaky, money grubbing, shifty dude. The kind of guy who uses lawyers, instead of a handshake.

It's crazy but in my mind the "old man" is the guy running this crypto company.

That's usually just 'the man'

I think a judge is necessary to determine DomainAgent’s brokering role with this specific property owner, because nobody knows and it is the crux of the case.

The rest of the actions or how we feel about the power dynamics are not really relevant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com