Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6375. (Read 9723733 times)

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.

Let's vote on the airdrop, I'm interested to see what people think:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/darkcoin-airdrop-cancelled-559932

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

 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??

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.

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. (I'll refrain from reposting my favourite Bill Hicks rant on the matter).

I know someone who works in the field, I'll try to get a you a ballpark estimate tomorrow.

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.

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

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

Also, Evan, thank you for considering this.

Also: it seems we have another candidate design, created by Enzwell:

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?

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.

Wow, perhaps. I'll check this 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...

A sister-coin will destroy Darkcoin. Why ? Because if it reach a larger public like you think, has the exact same properties, and is made by the same dev, the former coin has no reason to exist and will not attract investments. Conversely, a clone will never have the primacy nor the productive dev behind Darkcoin. So you see from where the real threat come from.

I'm not opposed to that, maybe we should vote on it?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/darksend-or-darkpay-559879

3.) I completely agree and I have plans for doing this with most of my time after DarkSend is completed. I'll detail this more tomorrow.

Well, I will say this. If there is a sister coin I will dump all of my darkcoin. Not that it matters of course. I really like the fact that there is a dedicated dev on darkcoin who is super talented. Two coins? ugh. Count me out. Let all the innovation be put forth into one coin without the hassle of upkeeping two. Who cares about the name. You guys really think the name is holding the coin back? It's that it's still in beta. Darksend hasn't been implemented. When it has and we hear people saying,"dark coin is cool...but that name. Err....think I'll go with goldcoin instead", I will kill myself.

I'm not sure why people keep talking about changing the name. It's not happening.

You make a reasonable argument why it may not be a good idea to create a differently-branded sister coin. However, it remains to be fully discussed whether there is a significant market that may be reached by a more public-friendly branding, and also whether there is a significant threat of Darkcoin being usurped by a "light"-branded clone when it goes open source (and what might be done to mitigate such a threat).

It's apparent that people feel very strongly about the whole topic of branding & reaching potential markets. There is also a lot of fear that this discussion is evidently bringing to the surface. In which case, I strongly urge you all not to censor the topic simply because it brings up bad feelings.