Author

Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6375. (Read 9724017 times)

full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
So first we changed from Xcoin to DRK coin and now another name? Christ.
sr. member
Activity: 1204
Merit: 272
1xbit.com
2) The first 24 hours became a larger problem when the # of coins decreased from 84million to 22million, In retrospect this was probably a mistake... but we can't take that back now without killing the price and shaking investor confidence. The airdrop idea sounds super shady, even if it isn't.

Major changes like this should not be taken lightly.  Investors want specs that are written in stone. Major changes should ONLY happen if it's crucial for the success of the coin.  Neither of these issues meet that requirement and therefore I think should be left as-is.

You raise valid points. I suppose it may not be clear to everyone, but the imbalance in the first 48 hrs of mining rewards is an issue that recurs daily, and is preventing some significant amount investment. To me, the salient questions are whether this is significant enough to take action, and if so, what action to take.

One possibility other than the airdrop could be to increase mining rewards for, say, the next 24 months, to bring down the relative % of coins mined in the first 48 hrs compared to coins in circulation.

This illustrates the imbalance -- it's no small thing:

full member
Activity: 280
Merit: 100
The Future Of Work

Honestly i'm thinking of stepping back from my current role after the logo comp is finished. It's a pretty thankless task, lots of work, lots of criticism, and you don't get paid. And I've gotta say, my dislike of marketing hasn't changed. Tongue (I'll refrain from reposting my favourite Bill Hicks rant on the matter).

Oh LimLims, you've seriously done a fantastic job!  I'm sure we're all grateful.  Unfortunately, it's like we're spinning our wheels.  Too many chefs in the kitchen, tbh.  I think you have a good feeling for what we need.  Maybe you all can discuss it amongst yourselves and come up with a good solution, no need to put it to a vote.
full member
Activity: 280
Merit: 100
The Future Of Work
Ok, so we don't spin our wheels, I'm going to start what I hope will be a brainstorm of letter "D" coin names so we can actually use what we've gotten in logo designs already:

Best ones I could come up with:

DataCoin - hey that would make sense if we sent small messages with payments?

Debitcoin - very "banking industry" sounding?

or Duffcoin Smiley


How 'bout:

Demicoin (small, lightweight?)

Distrocoin (distribution?)

Dittocoin (just think it sounds cool, LOL)

Dogecoin ... oh wait, that's taken.... well, it's better than Doomcoin, LOL

Oooooh, DragonCoin! or Drakecoin!  Don't wake the sleeping dragon in us (warning to heavy handed governments!)

Day-o-coin ('cause I'm a Harry Belafonte fan?







sr. member
Activity: 478
Merit: 250
My wallet is stuck at block 46834
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...

1) The name is fine - "the general public" is never going to use darkcoin, it will be used by people who care about ANONYMITY - The general public will just stick with bitcoin, because it is "anonymous enough" for 95% of folks, and has tons of other advantages (wide retail acceptance etc)
2) The first 24 hours became a larger problem when the # of coins decreased from 84million to 22million, In retrospect this was probably a mistake... but we can't take that back now without killing the price and shaking investor confidence. The airdrop idea sounds super shady, even if it isn't.

Major changes like this should not be taken lightly.  Investors want specs that are written in stone. Major changes should ONLY happen if it's crucial for the success of the coin.  Neither of these issues meet that requirement and therefore I think should be left as-is.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1036
Dash Developer
Here's the thing: I accept the fact that the Darkcoin name is not changing, and I stated as such to make people very clear that this has been decided.

All I'm doing is recognising that there is a significant segment of the market that will be wary of the current brand, which we might be able to reach, and brainstorming how we might reach it. If people genuinely believe that us launching a differently branded sister-coin might kill Darkcoin, then the implication that this is exactly what will happen when others inevitably do exactly what I'm suggesting we do. I'm very surprised that people think this is somehow "dangerous" to talk about. Surely it's more dangerous not to talk about it? Or y'know, we could just stick our heads in the sand and hope everything works out.

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...

2- really nice idea, I was also thinking that this first day should cause a lot of reticense to new investments..


Let's vote on the airdrop, I'm interested to see what people think:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/darkcoin-airdrop-cancelled-559932
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000
Here's the thing: I accept the fact that the Darkcoin name is not changing, and I stated as such to make people very clear that this has been decided.

All I'm doing is recognising that there is a significant segment of the market that will be wary of the current brand, which we might be able to reach, and brainstorming how we might reach it. If people genuinely believe that us launching a differently branded sister-coin might kill Darkcoin, then the implication that this is exactly what will happen when others inevitably do exactly what I'm suggesting we do. I'm very surprised that people think this is somehow "dangerous" to talk about. Surely it's more dangerous not to talk about it? Or y'know, we could just stick our heads in the sand and hope everything works out.

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...

2- really nice idea, I was also thinking that this first day should cause a lot of reticense to new investments..
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
 I think the problem with darkcoin name, and I really like it, is that people are putting it in the same context as Darkweb and illegal activity.

The only reason we would even consider it would be to make it easier to market to the masses, we dont want it to be a darkweb coin. Techies really wouldnt care about the name but the general public might.

Again I like the name but MAYBE it would be better accepted with a friendlier name??
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1036
Dash Developer
Here's the thing: I accept the fact that the Darkcoin name is not changing, and I stated as such to make people very clear that this has been decided.

All I'm doing is recognising that there is a significant segment of the market that will be wary of the current brand, which we might be able to reach, and brainstorming how we might reach it. If people genuinely believe that us launching a differently branded sister-coin might kill Darkcoin, then the implication that this is exactly what will happen when others inevitably do exactly what I'm suggesting we do. I'm very surprised that people think this is somehow "dangerous" to talk about. Surely it's more dangerous not to talk about it? Or y'know, we could just stick our heads in the sand and hope everything works out.

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...

Given that there are a lot of people here invested in Darkcoin & a lot riding on the outcome of our branding & marketing efforts, what about putting these questions to a professional branding & marketing consultant? I don't know if a poll of the userbase will give us an adequate answer to this one. I think we're all varying levels of amateur here when it comes to this stuff -- I'd be far more comfortable trusting an expert than an opinion poll. Thoughts?

I would like to see a vote first to see how many people like the name:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rebrand-darkcoin-finished-559912

However, I like your idea of doing this in a completely professional way. We would be the first coin with a marketing company backing us, that's neat.
sr. member
Activity: 1204
Merit: 272
1xbit.com

Given that there are a lot of people here invested in Darkcoin & a lot riding on the outcome of our branding & marketing efforts, what about putting these questions to a professional branding & marketing consultant? I don't know if a poll of the userbase will give us an adequate answer to this one. I think we're all varying levels of amateur here when it comes to this stuff -- I'd be far more comfortable trusting an expert than an opinion poll. Thoughts?

Absolutely.  I'd pony up a hundred or two DRK.  Would you be doing the leg work?

Honestly i'm thinking of stepping back from my current role after the logo comp is finished. It's a pretty thankless task, lots of work, lots of criticism, and you don't get paid. And I've gotta say, my dislike of marketing hasn't changed. Tongue (I'll refrain from reposting my favourite Bill Hicks rant on the matter).
full member
Activity: 133
Merit: 100
I agree, problem is we would need to raise some serious coin to do this.

Also, Evan, thank you for considering this.

Well, we still have 1773 DRK in the coffers from unclaimed bounties. I guess if we were to hire an expert to consult on the specific questions we're trying to answer, and perhaps on some high level strategic direction with branding & marketing, that would be a lot cheaper than hiring someone to do all the legwork. But I don't know how much either would cost, tbh.

I know someone who works in the field, I'll try to get a you a ballpark estimate tomorrow.
sr. member
Activity: 1204
Merit: 272
1xbit.com
I agree, problem is we would need to raise some serious coin to do this.

Also, Evan, thank you for considering this.

Well, we still have 1773 DRK in the coffers from unclaimed bounties. I guess if we were to hire an expert to consult on the specific questions we're trying to answer, and perhaps on some high level strategic direction with branding & marketing, that would be a lot cheaper than hiring someone to do all the legwork. But I don't know how much either would cost, tbh.
full member
Activity: 322
Merit: 105

Given that there are a lot of people here invested in Darkcoin & a lot riding on the outcome of our branding & marketing efforts, what about putting these questions to a professional branding & marketing consultant? I don't know if a poll of the userbase will give us an adequate answer to this one. I think we're all varying levels of amateur here when it comes to this stuff -- I'd be far more comfortable trusting an expert than an opinion poll. Thoughts?

Absolutely.  I'd pony up a hundred or two DRK.  Would you be doing the leg work to track down a consultant?
full member
Activity: 133
Merit: 100
Here's the thing: I accept the fact that the Darkcoin name is not changing, and I stated as such to make people very clear that this has been decided.

All I'm doing is recognising that there is a significant segment of the market that will be wary of the current brand, which we might be able to reach, and brainstorming how we might reach it. If people genuinely believe that us launching a differently branded sister-coin might kill Darkcoin, then the implication that this is exactly what will happen when others inevitably do exactly what I'm suggesting we do. I'm very surprised that people think this is somehow "dangerous" to talk about. Surely it's more dangerous not to talk about it? Or y'know, we could just stick our heads in the sand and hope everything works out.

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...

Given that there are a lot of people here invested in Darkcoin & a lot riding on the outcome of our branding & marketing efforts, what about putting these questions to a professional branding & marketing consultant? I don't know if a poll of the userbase will give us an adequate answer to this one. I think we're all varying levels of amateur here when it comes to this stuff -- I'd be far more comfortable trusting an expert than an opinion poll. Thoughts?

I agree, problem is we would need to raise some serious coin to do this.

Also, Evan, thank you for considering this.
sr. member
Activity: 1204
Merit: 272
1xbit.com
Also: it seems we have another candidate design, created by Enzwell:

sr. member
Activity: 1204
Merit: 272
1xbit.com
Here's the thing: I accept the fact that the Darkcoin name is not changing, and I stated as such to make people very clear that this has been decided.

All I'm doing is recognising that there is a significant segment of the market that will be wary of the current brand, which we might be able to reach, and brainstorming how we might reach it. If people genuinely believe that us launching a differently branded sister-coin might kill Darkcoin, then the implication that this is exactly what will happen when others inevitably do exactly what I'm suggesting we do. I'm very surprised that people think this is somehow "dangerous" to talk about. Surely it's more dangerous not to talk about it? Or y'know, we could just stick our heads in the sand and hope everything works out.

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...

Given that there are a lot of people here invested in Darkcoin & a lot riding on the outcome of our branding & marketing efforts, what about putting these questions to a professional branding & marketing consultant? I don't know if a poll of the userbase will give us an adequate answer to this one. I think we're all varying levels of amateur here when it comes to this stuff -- I'd be far more comfortable trusting an expert than an opinion poll. Thoughts?
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
I don't give a fuck what the coin is called. It is what it is.

Your example about Apple points out one valid thing, brands can evolve. DarkCoin isn't even a brand, it's an unproven technology still at this point. I believe it will work as outlined by Evan, but that alone won't put it over the top. It won't be the fucking logo either.

The point here is, take a moment and google Zercoin. Look at the media they've gotten. Look at the keywords you see when you read the articles. Now a month or more ago, people donated to a "marketing" fund and there should be expectations of something happening other than your typical crapcoin "bounties". All supporters of the coin should ask, has anything really been done? Those guys have gotten attention either speaking to the media

There were discussions of some very essential and basic steps that could be taken to get the coin elevated to start to be noticed outside the world of BitCoinTalk. These means media outreach, speaking at crypto events, etc.

I see no new articles, no upcoming appearances or much in the way of discussions outside of this naming and branding stuff that is nothing more than going after the lowest hanging fruit. By this point, to be honest, there should be at least a handful of articles about DarkCoin on the front page.

Whatever, aside from Evan and Anonymint, reading this thread makes me want to sell.


Obviously, DarkSend must work. Everyone posting on this thread and invested in this coin is operating on that premise. Without DarkSend, this is just another coin.

However, the branding will probably prove important to at least some degree, unless DarkSend is completely unmatched in terms of its transactional anonymity (and probably even then). I think I am safe in assuming that no one has bothered with a crypto-media blitz because the main component of the technology is still in beta. Building hype (which is all it would be until DarkSend is ready) is useful, but difficult and time-consuming. Once the technology is ready, the process becomes much easier.

In terms of branding, the name is inherently a problem. If unaddressed it will, at best, not be a positive aspect of the enterprise; at worst, it might hamper wider adoption of the coin. We know that Dark is supposed to refer to privacy, but that is hierarchically lower on the semiotic chain than, say, 'evil' or 'illicit.' Thus, the logo must do the work of directing the uninformed user to the correct connotation.

In that respect, picking the black/white logo, #6, would be a mistake. It presents no useful information whatsoever, and is not unique in its choice of font. I would prefer a logo like #7 or #8, although I admit that I am disappointed by the execution, and probably will ultimately vote for #3.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1036
Dash Developer
Per our upthread technical discussion, I now realize that the traceable ring signature may be the way to prevent denial-of-service, eliminate the collateral payment and eliminate the ability of the Master node to correlate the inputs and outputs of a transaction. Thus providing absolute anonymity! Yeah!

http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/389.pdf

Perhaps something to consider for version 2?

Wow, perhaps. I'll check this out.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1036
Dash Developer
Here's the thing: I accept the fact that the Darkcoin name is not changing, and I stated as such to make people very clear that this has been decided.

All I'm doing is recognising that there is a significant segment of the market that will be wary of the current brand, which we might be able to reach, and brainstorming how we might reach it. If people genuinely believe that us launching a differently branded sister-coin might kill Darkcoin, then the implication that this is exactly what will happen when others inevitably do exactly what I'm suggesting we do. I'm very surprised that people think this is somehow "dangerous" to talk about. Surely it's more dangerous not to talk about it? Or y'know, we could just stick our heads in the sand and hope everything works out.

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...
Jump to: