I may be misunderstanding this article
http://www.coindesk.com/perkins-coie-bitcoin-can-learn-real-estate-law/ but it looks like one more reason the fungability of DRK makes it superior to BTC. Notice that the cure proposed for the problem is an appeal to government to reclassify BTC under the UCC...
As usual; the cure for a problem generated by regulation, is more regulation. Yet one more piece of evidence that Satoshi's baton has been passed to DRK.
From the article:
Summary
Under the current Bitcoin ecosystem, parties lack information regarding existing security interests. This circumstance leaves acquirers of bitcoins with the risk that their bitcoins may be subject to security interests that diminish or eliminate the economic value of the bitcoins to owners.
For bitcoins to become useful in significant commercial transactions, the present uncertainties regarding existing security interests must be removed. These uncertainties not only affect the ability of the acquirer to be certain it is receiving the value it bargained for, but also greatly diminishes the ability of the acquirer to finance such investments.
The Article 8 structure provides the solution for these deficiencies. It is a system that has worked well for securities and is flexible enough to do the same for bitcoins.
I think I can simplify it further... They're saying "Let's put a lein on that pile of un-traceable cash you have in your mattress." Hmm.. how does that work exactly? What the author is pretending not to understand is that Bitcoin is already cash. (And so is DRK, which can add even more fungibility when BTC is in question).
The author of this article is either really dumb, or is deliberately trying to inhibit Bitcoin's success. My guess is the latter is true.
----
On a similar note, who else is sick of articles touting "blockchain technology" as the "real innovation" or "the real takeaway from Bitcoin"? It is quite obvious to me that this is a far-reaching anti-bitcoin campaign, probably started by the incumbent bankers who forsee their eventual demise at the hands of...well...hands (when people start holding their own money themselves). They don't want people to realize that the bitcoin itself has value. They want Joe Shmoe to think Bitcoin is a payment method or a technology or something, when in fact it is a persistent fact of nature like rocks or dirt. Bitcoin is not "a technology" which gets outdated. It just exists and you can trade them around very easily. Dark is that way too, and goes one step further and adds anonymity to ensure fungibility.
Saying things like "the real innovation is not bitcoin itself, but blockchain technology" is like saying "the real innovation is not gold itself, but atoms!" "Think of the infinite possibilities with atomic technology! (and please, stop thinking about gold or anything else that your instincts tell you is real and un-fakeable... keep thinking about my theoritical complicated economic bullshit and continue to use my funny-money)."
What most don't seem to recognize is that the blockchain IS bitcoin and vice versa. You can't separate it. Oh, so you want to have a centralized ledger? Call it what you want, but it is not "block chain technology like bitcoin", because only Bitcoin, Darkcoin and other true PoW coins have (are) a blockchain.
