Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6379. (Read 9724017 times)

My vote is still the original #1.

I can't really explain why but it feels like "something different". It's not your boring daily sh|tcoin. It's something else. It has it's own unique character which really copes with it's "dark" name.
And I am truly in love with this shade of blue.
Also, I can clearly recognize the D character (unlike with some new "trendy" font styles where almost every characters look alike).

Please don't turn the face of this coin into a "trendy" new dynamic copy-paste jumpy style.

I agree. Look how Darkcoin was pulled from The Armory because it wasn't open source. If it's not open source there's is too much trust involved and in my opinion it almost definitely wouldn't get to $100.

I think the wheels are in motion. Darkcoin is to stay as the name and soon the logo will be chosen so the real marketing can begin. There is already an established base of supporters which could be larger, of course, but is nothing to sneeze at. The price has been quite stable in the last couple of weeks despite Bitcoin having a tough time.

This was the plan of attack not long ago:

Interest should be drummed up once the logo is decided on, then turned up a notch leading into each of the key stages listed above. I think once it's open source plenty of people will jump on board but if it's enough publicity beforehand, there will be a lot of people wanting to get in before it actually becomes open (hopefully not too many specualtors).

#2 is the best all around in terms of professionalism and sophistication with a bit of edge

#6 if you want "professional cool" - my favorite of the lot, but not suited for our purposes (more for a video game company or indy film studio)

#8 or something like it if you want safe, dorky corporate

well if you look it in terms of us vs them. We all in here trust the closed source anyways. if people want in then we push them for buy in, preventing early clones with snatch and run tactics. In a sense it would be most fair to early adopters aswell. I don't think it will work either but brainstorming is nice

I don't think that will work. People will not trust a non open source solution.

Charts here: http://crypto-prices.com/DRK

Just state that Darkcoin will keep Darksend as closed source until it reaches 100$ and has a mean over 100$ for 1-2 months.

Shirt order update:



Guys in the US, expect your shirts this week. Heads up for those who don't check mail regularly.

I still have a spare XL and a 2XL available.

While I agree DarkSend is the secret sauce. What's going to happen if when someone clones Evans work and comes up with a much better name, marketing and branding strategy?

I believe this coin has enough inivation innovation to give bitcoin a run for it's money, what I don't understand is why Evan is pigeonholing his work.

http://drk.poolhash.org/graph.html

has next block number, difficulty, 24hr avg diff, 24hr avg reward.

I do see your point, but I think we share a fundamentally different viewpoint on where altcoins are going. I don't see mass public adoption even a remote possibility, not .000000000001%, in my mind it is 0.0%. (Though I do just want to make sure I am clear here, I don't think altcoins, specifically darkcoin, is worthless, I think they have some great potential and will continue to have value for years to come. My mother just will never use them for example.) At least not without the kind of major improvement I described above.

Given that viewpoint, long term, marketing in terms of the general public will be the less successful route.

But if I am wrong (which all it is a guess, hardly even an educated one, because the events leading to or away from mass adoption will likely be unpredictable chance occurrences rendering any "educatedness" of the event moot) then a marketing scheme more towards the general public absolutely would win out.

Put the effort into DarkSend branding.

That's where the money is.

"Widespread" is a relative term -- better to think about it in terms of a direct comparison: which approach do we think will result in the larger market share long term?

I couldn't agree more. #6 just looks cool, but in my opinion, #2 or some variant of it is exactly what we should be looking for the exact reasons you said.

While I don't agree with changing names or that it will prevent widespread adoption, I do agree about everything else.

Though I am curious what your definition of widespread adoption is. I think it is important that we are realistic about what widespread adoption means in cryptocurrency, especially an altcoin in the current market. I can see a world where my mother uses bitcoin. I cannot see a world my she would use any altcoin, unless a major feature/change/disruption is released of a magnitude 100x what we have already seen from all alts combined, I don't see that changing. I do think there is a very important market for altcoins, much greater than day trading and currency speculation. And it is a market I am invested in, with a very significant amount of my time, and to a lesser extent, money (more if I could afford it). And it is that market I look to when I am considering the widespread adoption of the coin, because realistically widespread adoption in terms of the general public is at the moment still questionable for bitcoin, let alone an altcoin.

While I don't like the idea, domain names are not expensive, nor are ssl certificates. I realize in terms of money, everything is relative, however a domain an SSL can be had for under $20. Which is lower enough to not even consider in the cost of changing names.

Failing to secure multiple millions in market share is expensive, too. In any case, the naming issue has been finalised by the devs, so it's a moot point. The question now is how to best brand Darkcoin to secure the maximum market share.

Damnit LimLims don't support that. Domain names are expensive. (and ssl certificates too!)

Well, I argued for a name change some time ago, but the idea didn't have enough support -- basically the official line is that the name will not change. The Darkcoin brand actually does a decent job of filling the "underground" niche, but I have always felt it will prevent the coin from gaining widespread adoption. Of course, that's just an opinion, and time will tell. IMO the best that can be achieved given the circumstances is to mitigate the effects of the stigma by carefully thought out branding & marketing.

The more I think about it, number 2 is the best balanced.  It's professional and edgy, but also looks very trustworthy, cutting edge, and lightweight.

Then again I find the #6 b&w logo simple and sophisticated, I fail to see "coolness" as in "look we are so edgy". But beyond the design there are the qualities of the coin, coins with a wonderful design may fail in that aspect, however, I believe that Darkcoin has everything it takes to succeed.

If that is truly there case, then we need to change the name. It is earlier enough we still could. If being a dark coin is going to be such a challenge to get mass adoption, what is the point of calling it darkcoin?

Personally? I don't agree with a word I just said, because I also don't think we should be running from the idea of "dark" like you do. I don't think however we market it should promote that first and foremost, but at the same time it shouldn't be ignored. You can be professional and edgy at the same time.