That isn't a "swipe", that is an opinion earnestly stated - the only way it could be considered a swipe is if you take for granted people being well versed in the goings on of the early cipherpunk mailing list. I make no such assumption. I also strongly disagree with the other guy getting flagged, such hypersensitive moderation is far more poisonous to the discussion than anything yet said.
I'm sorry but what makes it a swipe is that it's a low-information putdown (and even a cliché of those). That's the high order bit, not whether it was an opinion-earnestly-stated, because it's what determines how the comment lands with the other user in the typical case, and that's what determines whether we get more interesting thoughtful exchanges, or less interesting flamewars. This case ended up being typical because we ended up with a flamewar of the tit-for-tat variety. That's not what HN is for!
(As a side note, one reliable indicator of thread deterioration is when people start arguing about what each did or didn't say.)
Instead of putting down the other person's knowledge level, it would have been better to share* some of the specific goings-on of early cipherpunk mailing lists, since you obviously know something about that. That would have gratified the curiosity of the general readers (me included!) and this is more important—it is in fact the purpose of the site—than defeating somebody in an argument.
As for the other user getting flagged, I appreciate your looking out for them—but it isn't about either you or them, it's about the general audience, which comes here hoping to read things that are more interesting than putdowns and tit-for-tats. We have rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) that try to encourage that and discourage the opposite, and when people break those rules, it's good to mark that by flagging the comments because it indicates to the rest of the userbase that concern for discussion quality remains present here.
As I said, it is only a putdown if you presuppose that everyone is expected to already know the thing. So I'd agree with you if I was responding to someone like Phil Zimmermann - but that isn't the case here (I'm pretty sure). Citing a specific discussion in the mailing list in order to circumvent this interesting definition of a slight presents a problem, first: the entire raison d'etre of the list was to put into action the concept of technical solutions for political problems - so it would be like eating an elephant. Second: the one quintessential thread that immediately comes to mind would severely strain your moderation instincts - considering these flaggings. But since you expressed an interest, I'll provide a hint: one proposed solution, prior to the satoshi white paper, centered around the game theory of a trustless market for assassination.
It is ironic that a discussion about solving political/social problems with technological solutions, on a news aggregator like this one, has taken this turn: self censorship and moderation in the furtherance of discourse quality control.
Your argument is too refined! All I'm talking about is basic internet dynamics at the crudest level, because those are the dynamics that govern large public forums like HN.
Low-information internet putdowns land with readers as swipes, especially with the reader who is the target of the putdown. This degrades discussion, so we don't allow it here.
