And, for the third time: As long as narwal actually creates a market for them and works to develop the infrastructure that can support it, good for him/her.
This isn't about "we don't like what he did let's take away his property" (at least to me). In fact, I supported narwhal in his efforts to monetize the names. I have no problems with squatters, as they perform a market function and are entrepreneurs that took a risk. I do have a problem with systems that enable perpetual squatting. That is a bad game theory/economic model. It's like margin trading with no interest or calls. If names are a resources, I don't want the blockchain to give the resource away forever. See puppies post on this topic:https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17016.msg218242.html#msg218242
Now, for the benefit of the community, a lesson in how to have a fruitful discussion
You tell me which argument is the straw man:
1. Now that we've finally caught the diabolical Molecatcher, what should the community do to punish him (mwoo hoo woo oo ah ah ah ah!)?
2. What should the account name registration fees be?
Neither are arguments, neither are strawmen. For an understanding of what an argument is, see;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
which - although funny, drives home the point of how an argument (point of discussion) differs from an argument (discourse between opposing positions). A straw man argument is an intentionally weak point of discussion set up by one party to make the other look weak. For example:
"The community lacked foresight in their fee structure, narwhal took advantage of the fee rules, the community feels like they got ripped off, therefore the community wants to whine and take away people's property" is a strawman argument that you can take down with, "As bitshares we all agree we must protect property, so everyone that wants to take away property rights is against bitshares" And thus avoid the arguments of, "all rules are defined by the blockchain, the genesis block of the new blockchain has not been written yet, therefore there are no rules yet for the new blockchain" or the argument "while there is market value to name speculation, there is no market value to indefinite name speculation or removal of names from the namespace, therefore indefinite name speculation should be considered for possible removal"
Further discussing what to do with Mr. Molecatcher is indeed a "strawman argument" in comparison to the pertinent discussion on consensus building to secure the integrity of BitShares and your childerens' future. I have been hammering you on this for over a year now, and it is exhausting. But that is what this community loves to do...
Again, that is not a strawman argument (nor an argument at all) - you are confusing the two definitions of argument:https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Straw_man