Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 2677. (Read 9723733 times)

Well there is no convincing you, so what can we do.  Good luck with your taking advantage of those in vulnerable situations it must be great for your spirit.

Edit: Plus there is legal precedence as the  Mtgox  bankruptcy case is a formal legal case where the trademark is being authorized to be sold as part of the liquidation of assets of the company. The process is being advance in front of a judge and guess what not even the MtGox BTC holders get the money, the creditors will get the trademark money

My farm you can't cease and desist people who bought property to stop using their property that's called property law!  You are thinking of incorporated companies with shares and confused. Stop using legal terms if you don't have the first clue how they apply in law!

Hmmm.  So the bitcoin trademark is less than 1 million dollars?  How about I use my capital in a positive way, purchase the bitcoin trademark, and we rename Darkcoin to Bitcoin, send a cease and desist to all bitcoin holders/exchanges/companies and this entire argument is moot?

And just because some high profile lawyers deemed something to be so doesn't mean it is.  There has been no case law.  No case law means no legal precedent.  And this case isn't exactly like the bitcoin case.  There are some very important differences.

I think that's a little harsh BlockaFett. It's an understandable response to MyFarm, but he clearly has a far greater handle on legal issues than a potato! (obviously)

His points are important and his take on the situation is worthy of discussion. My concern (and by now most other DRK/DASH community members' concern) is whether his potential to use his possible Dashcoin >51% position to somehow set up a legal precedent against DRK/DASH has any legs (and furthermore is of obvious dubious moral value). I agree his line of thinking (coin holders have as much right to the IP as the original dev) is way out there and not likely to be taken too seriously but, this discussion is an important one and needs to be had (even though there's potentially more uncertainty being raised we have to get past it).

I hope you know how to code and stuff because it only takes a couple lines of code to render those gazillion coins null because the network is no longer there.

It seems to me you need devs a whole lot more than you think. Remember, this is their project/hobby/passion, not yours or ours. We may be crazy fanatical and loyal to a fault, but they are the ones that work for mostly free and created our fun from

But there is legal precedent. I don't know if it was new information to you and you are still processing, but the Bitcoin trademark is owned by MtGox, not any of the Bitcoin holders. It has been reviewed by high profile lawyers and they still concluded MtGox can sell the trademark without asking any of the BTC holders. When you get coins you get property, not any voting rights as you said so yourself.  Plus you just own X amount of the DSH in existence, not the future emission and  DSH could print a Super Block with  1000000000 Billion coins and then what?  It is just not as you initially thought.

Instead of constantly trying to take advantage of vulnerable situations. Would it hurt to use all this experience and capital to actually help in a positive way for once?

We are not here to help you define your dumbass legal challenge to our own investment MyFarm lol.  From how you write about it you have the legal mind of a potato because owning % a coin conveys zero legal rights, give it a rest mate.  (or go pay a lawyer to tell you the same thing)

How you can conclude there is zero leverage when there is no legal precedent in this space is fascinating to me.

It's like when the domain name wars began.  There was no legal precedent as it was an emerging technology, but it sure ended up being created.

What I'd like to know is: how are the holders of a decentralized asset NOT the owners and in control who simply choose to allow the dev to do as they please as long as the community determine they're doing what is in the interest of the asset?  If the majority owners of a decentralized asset don't want their decentralized asset's trademark sold, can it be sold?  As far as I know, there is no legal precedent to answer this question.  Yet.

Ethically, not purchasing Dashcoin was a terrible decision.  What Darkcoin has done may very well be perfectly ok from a legal standpoint.  However, as there is zero legal precedent for decentralized assets, what I'm saying is the deep-pocketed company Darkcoin is picking a fight with may choose not to walk away from their trademark registration without a serious fight.  And that serious fight may result in legal precedent being set.  I'd be dumb not to buy a boatload of the very cheap underlying asset the fight is over just in case the legal precedent would be in my favor.

Or Darkcoin could properly acquire Dashcoin and close the potential argument of the opposing company.  There's two ways I can win.  Of course, I could be completely wrong, lose and very well may.  I lose more than I win.  But when I win, I tend to win big.

posted this earlier..anyway why people only notices the logo? how is my comic?  

Yes.....as you say though, the movie with Brad Cooper should be riveting! Can hardly wait for its release!

Now if you're splitting hairs on copying shit, your thread, July 05, 2014, 06:31:39 AM, our original Darkcoin logo:



Really?

The latest shift for the Xpool Multipool paid out over 20+ DRK, 60+ BTCD, 120+ FIBRE & 0.115+ BTC.

** We are merge mining on all algos. X11: Unitus - SCRYPT: Dogecoin & ViaCoin & SysCoin & PesetaCoin & GreenCoin - SHA256: DevCoin & NameCoin.

Any problems, please PM as I may miss your post.

Cheers!

www.xpool.ca

No he does not get any leverage at all, 0. Other than trying to convey a feeling of uncertainty and fear into the more inexperienced holders. It is shameful, just like the whole SPR business, and now this. He is a vulture investor, which is fine but is not really my taste.

Ok so people already new and I am late to catch on

Yes it's dumb to think if you own 51% of a coin you own the trademark, maybe he thinks coins are companies where shares convey legal rights, IDK.  I'm ignoring....

MyFarm's clearly a serious investor and will be looking out for "number 1" (which is the usual driver of what makes most people tick....it's understandable)

So this...


...will have an agenda and something to leverage off associated with it.

He thinks there is going to be a famous MyFarm vs Dash case, that will be make into a movie and the MyFarm role is going to be played by Bradley Cooper.

But it really is not going to happen.

He can go buy the Bitcoin trademark too, after he is done buying all DSH. I must say that is a really nice gesture that he gave all DSH holders a nice exit in the name of the Darkcoin community. I do think that was nice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10859773/Bitcoin-trademark-up-for-sale-at-580000.html

It's why I said this to MyFarm:

Be my guest ! 

Interesting recent MyFarm quotes:

1. "Whoever owns the most Dashcoin can potentially make Darkcoin's entire legal argument moot."

2. "I SUSPECT that whoever owns 50.000000001% of Dashcoin is going to own the Dash financial trademark"

3. "Willing to buy up to 51% of all outstanding DSH at .00000025 XMR/DSH.  That is my bid on Poloniex, feel free to hit it"

4. (@dashcoin thread) "I only need 24 billion more.  At that point it becomes so much easier."

5. "...I have to step in and protect my investment and Darkcoin from you dumbfucks.  If I'm going to do that, rest assured I'm going to prove a painful point in the process because I'm pretty pissed about having to do it."

Just me and BigTimeProducer think something might be 'funny' here?

I'm sure you are really happy with your investments, and thats good to hear.

But this is the drk/dash thread, not the general chat room for alts.