Yes, the subject was title changes. That's why your comment, "The real question is why it took an HN post that reached the frontpage to see any sort of response from coinbase" was a change of subject. My point is that such an ammunition-refill reveals underlying intent.
You are accusing me of intellectual dishonesty which started from PG not addressing the question of title changes.
The only statement he made on that point is:
"That convention is for company names that appear in headlines of stories."
And in pointing to the guidelines, there is something that is relevant to the titles: "In titles, please don't describe things by their relation to YC unless they're actually associated with YC."
So he didn't give a response that explained why the title was changed. He thinks the issue is between "killing the story" and "renaming the title". But if he thinks that killing the story is a way to respond, that suggests he doesn't appreciate the severity of the situation.
I've seen a similar situation before with much more money (15M) so I know how frustrating it is to wonder if you will ever get your money back and to plan for lawsuits. In my case, it took complaints to SEC to get them to finally return the money. You may think this is a trivial issue, but it's very hard to re-establish trust once it is lost.
Back on point, I don't think PG appreciates the severity of the issue at hand.
On reflection, I don't have enough information to know that you were being intellectually dishonest. Other explanations are possible. So I'm sorry I said that.
