Proper attribution (especially when it comes to open source attribution) doesn't mean that you need to put the name of the first guy who had that idea on your product...
Well, there is the problem. In my opinion, masternodes are NOT a product. They are a feature from the product, which is SpreadCoin. So while you're looking at naming a product, i'm looking at naming a feature. It makes simply no sense for me to rename a feature, while it makes no sense for you to NOT rename a product.
Still, i am unable to see masternodes as a product. The only product i see is "spreadcoin", and everything else are features included in it.
Interesting thoughts for sure.
This makes me think: when is something a "feature", and when is it something
essential for the function of a product?
Obviously, things are not called a "feature" when they are essential for the operation of the product.
Features are rather what I call "goodies" or "gimmicks". Nice things to have, and they define and shape the product
and its value, but they could also be excluded from the product while it would STILL stay operational.
Let's make a few examples:
If I buy a car, the tires or the engine are not "features"... no sane carproducer would make advertisement that calls the engine a "feature"...
But obviously, having Anti-lock-brake-System installed is a nice feature... and so is GPS navigation and airbags.
Same thing with computers....
Nobody calls the CPU, RAM or even the keyboard or the screen a "feature" of a computer, since they are so essential for its operation.
But you might call the multitouch ability of a screen a "feature", or blue tooth or special extensions like FireWire etc...
Now when we apply that to cryptocurrencies..... nobody doubts that a thing like "instantx" or "DarkSend" is a feature.
But no sane person would say that the blockchain is a feature, or that a
miner is a feature.
Because those things are essential parts of ALL cryptocurrencies (we even call currencies that don't have those features FAKE or FIAT currencies for this very reason).
Therefor I advocate that ...
a
masternode is a
server is an
essential part of a network.
A masternode is just another actor, it belongs into the same category as a miner. (more or less)
A masternode is not a "feature". It is something essential for the operation of a network.
So the conclusion is:
A masternode is just a server. Darkcoin doesn't just get to rename an essential part of a technology that has been around for decades and make it its feature and expect everybody to call it the same.
A masternode is just a server, but darkcoin decided to make such an essential part of any network a "feature" of its product.
All this reminds me a little bit of the apple/samsung patent battle, and who of them gets to own "rounded corners" on all devices worldwide.
No sir, you don't get to own such a thing. Since it is an essential part of everyday life, that has been here long before you arrived.