Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6376. (Read 9724017 times)

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.

See what happens when Evan takes a day off?  Boy are we gonna get it when he comes home!

LOL

I'm sure there won't be any name change nor another coin.  We do have to settle on a logo and brainstorm a marketing plan.  We have a lot of good choices to choose from, and I know there are awesome people here with great ideas, so lets stop hitting this nail on the head, we're denting the wood fibers and ruining the finish, eh?  

I support the thought process there, but maybe there is a non-attacking way to communicate it across. No one is an employee of the Darkcoin organization. Everyone should be helping with their abilities.

Darkcoin is not at the forefront when it comes to Anonymous coin discussions. I don't think pointing to a few posts here in AnonCoin thread counts. The acceptance should be across major blogs etc. I absolutely don't do well when it comes to marketing it seems. Hopefully we have some wildcards in the threads who have the outreach. There always seems to be some resistance to Darkcoin (maybe it is all in my head).

Fascinating read. +1 on implementing this for Darkcoin version 2.

That's my point, Darkcoin provides that so there's no need for a second one.

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.

As the designer of #8, I still think #6 is by far the best. #2 just seems a bit too busy and probably won't scale well, but it seems like some people like it more than #6 because of its color scheme. The color scheme can be changed very easily, so I think we should bet too hung up on a design because it's "darkness" or lack therof. I think that's something that can be settled after a design is chosen.

Just an example of what could be done for those who think #6 is too dark (using #2's color scheme):

Because want a coin that serves truly provides decentralized anonymity

+1 Why invest in a coin when we know that a clone will be created by the same dev. They become substitutes not complements.

This is why I posted a few pages ago when there was actually a troll trying to piggyback on AnonyMint's valid feedbacks. He had some bad beef with members very early in this coin's lifecycle I'm guessing, but AnonyMint is legit. Click on his profile and check his posts in Economics subforums. You will not be disappointed.

I like you.

If Evan created a second coin, Darkcoin would lose its credibility right away. It would make Evan appear as a altcoin P&D creator and nothing more. Not to mention if it used the same damn specs, half the market cap would be destroyed. Terrible idea. The trolls have shown up. Darkcoin as a name and brand are gaining credibility and really starting to scare some people too. (Look at the last posts in the anoncoin thread. Seriously.)

There are now many services and references on the internet that point to Darkcoin (name wise) as well. Changing it would be a disaster. It would cause most people to loose faith in the community and also confuse new investors by not knowing if the project was changed, abandoned, or replaced.

Currently as it stands, I personally believe that the name should stay as Darkcoin and no spinoff coin should be made by Evan.

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?

Apple died until is launched a new mac with round edges and see through plastic painted a shade of pastel crap.  It was no more technically advanced. People were simply paying for brand coolness.  Apple also made the iPhone off the back of white headphones that gave people a way to link themselves to cool brand identity when they purchased an iPod.

Apple is all about making products look good and giving users a way to associate with that cool by just buying their stuff. It did use to have innovation inside too, but it really took existing ideas and made them look better and gave them better form factor.

There is no reason for a polo shirt to cost over $100 when its cost of production is less than $3. People spend the extra $93 on a logo that gives them a brand association.

Branding is everything and nothing. Get it right and you end up with everything, get it wrong and you end up with nothing.

There is no reason for Litecoin to exist. It does so because it calls itself silver to bitcoin's gold.

I'm not staked on the idea of darkcoin branding. It is important, but Darksend is the term that everyone will be using. That needs to be right.

A second coin? Who knows. But why not make it extra hard for a clone to set-up by beating them to the punch? We can have our own bitcoin / litecoin thing going on. That would make cheap headlines and extra column inches. It would need to be handled correctly to avoid diluting the existing message. But an alt-coin with a stock split kind of thing to deter potential clones? Hmm.

EDIT : Fcuk it....we can airdrop a 50% premine to existing darkcoin holders after 6 months of darksend launch and and push up the price of darkcoin in the meantime

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.

How does darksend compare to fedoracoin or anoncoin anyway?