Are you a Monero shill or are you just genuinely interested in both coins ?

I can never make my mind up from your posts.

And I love the fact that this will be called DASH (if that's what it's to be) and not "Dashcoin".

That "coin" thing is like something for games. It's ok for Bitcoin which is a special case but I like the idea of ditching the "coin".

Dash is a more grown up name and will do justice to what's now on the roadmap. I agree with the previous posters - this is the time for sorting stuff out and what's on offer is awsome. It isn't "scrape-the-barrel-for-features gimmicky stuff, it's cryptocurrency heavy lifting.

Core technologies that take on the most difficult and fundamentally crucial properties of money. Evan is right to lever the dual-layer service capacity of this network to the max - as long as it's relevant, core stuff which it is. Scaling, fungibility, transaction capacity, optimisation of the confirmation process, end user responsiveness.

It's all good stuff and it well justifies a brand review IMO because "creepy dark corners" do not remotely do justice to what's on the cards here. It needs to be wheeled into the light and made accessible to everyone.

Bitcoin's nearly there !

I am increasingly happy about it as well. At least no one can say it's a boring life being in this coin.

I like advancement and solving problems, and the branding was a huge one. More than anything it will wake people up and draw a lot of attention to the roadmap IMO.

(+ I just made a tidy gain on my Monero from all the chaos, now realised  )

There you go. It's working already.

Same for me. I can't see what that nutcase is saying either.

I respect people who like the name but I just think it's a total ball and chain round this coin's ankle at this point.

There are no "core markets" in this game.

The alt-coin league is barely 18 months sold. The idea that you can build up a "core market" in that amount of time that will sustain you is ridiculous. If you don't re-invent yourself periodically someone else will come and do it for you - and steal your place in the race.

Thats the real threat - not that Darkcoin looses its following through change, but that it looses its following through not changing.

The name change reflects whats actually going on - progress. If another coin called "DASH" appeared out of nowhere with dual-layer tech, InstantX, multiply redundant anonymity, legacy compliance, a solution to the blockchain boat on the roadmap and a dev that's productive and visionary as ED, Darkcoin would be trounced. Don't think the name would save it.

Thats why I think that this move is good and will not bring the sky crashing down like many are predicting. Dash may sound weird right now - even to me - but in a few weeks time it will sound damn cool again. The market will get lots of things it likes - something new, solutions to problems it knows are a headache for Bitcoin, an anonymous currency that's palatable to the wider world plus a bonus package - pedigree.

That's worth at least as much as loosing a few masternodes IMO.

How ?

I don't think the debate about whether an alt can overtake bitcoin or not has any bearing on the merits of the name change.

The question is if DRK can get away with a name change and not loose its support.

Some think it can't. I think it can because there isn't anything else going thats going to offer what it's developing.

The thing about Dash is that it still has the root of "Darkcoin" in the name.

So there's continuity even there.

LoL. You certainly get full points for persistence (and it's not a bad name).

Here's a few famous name changes where they were needed to ditch "adverse baggage" but also look at the trend - from longer, more complex names to shorter, snappy ones.

Dash sure is a lot more snappy than "Darkcoin" at least as a mouthful. It's a natural progression. One is slow, lumbering and has the word "coin" in the title. The other is single sylable, starts with D, rhymes with cash and isn't synonymous with Dark web, dark money or dark markets so can't be sunk by default.

Check them out... http://www.famousnamechanges.net/html/corporate.htm

OK - you've posted some interesting facts and I respect your view. You've also quantified a few things that I haven't done which is admirable.

When I said "documented barrier to adoption" I was referring to cases like this:


I'm not trying to be contentious and I share a lot of the sentiments in views such as yours. I'm just saying if people who are actually doing groundwork to promote adoption say that the name is a problem (as opposed to people sitting in their armchairs at home watching charts) then I'm ok with them changing the name.

You might be right but I doubt it.

I think the name is far more of an issue than the nature of the network.

For a start, as far as most legistlators are concerned, Bitcoin is an anonymous payments system. Ok, you can trace the flow from one address to the next (you can in Darkcoin as well) but there's no legal, identifiable entity associated with those addresses the way there is with a bank account. That's what they're worried about, not anonymous blockchains. I don't think they give a sh*t whether a blockchain is anonymous or not.

They DO however give a sh*t about a name like Darkcoin because it has a direct association with the dark web and dark markets. For politicians, media, legislators and even exchanges - thats toxic whatever way you roll it.

We can always say "stuff them", they're full of BS and we don't care. Fine. But don't start expecting us to get to Litecoin's market cap and level of liquidity or asking the team to get it adopted here there and everywhere etc etc.

Darkcoin hasn't grown much in adoption. It's grown in valuation and development.

The only significant exchange it's on right now is Bitfinex. Although the name may not be "toxic" amongst early adopters (thats ourselves) it's a different story amongst the broader market.

BTCe, Chinese exchanges, US exchanges - none of them show the remotest hint of taking it. Of course that might be for reasons other than the name, but according to the accounts of 'coin staff' who've been 'out there' trying to get it promoted and adopted, the name categorically is a barrier to adoption.

If you think otherwise you need to come up with a better justification than simply "it's worked up till now". The only growth so far has come from the developer community and early adopters. New growth needs to come from new sources.

As I say - I'm not unhappy with the Darkcoin name but I'm not overly attached to it  either. All I'm saying is: there's a problem with the next phase of growth. The name is a documented issue. So do something about it.

Giving something a totally toxic name that stops it from growing isn't "doing nothing".

I think they bought the rights to it so there'd be no conflict (i.e.repository names etc)

Another thing about this episode - it's given us just the correction we needed in the long range chart:

Really ?! I didn't know that   Thanks.

Well - just shows you that it didn't matter, because to us it was a raincoat  

For all those unhappy about the name "Dash", have a think about a few things before you throw the baby out with the bathwater...

It isn't the job of a name to inspire - that's the job of the underlying product who's identifying characteristics are then taken on by the name. The name needs to be an easy handle to hold, that's all. Something thats easy to grab onto, pronounce, write, display, remember etc.

I was around and programming when the name "Macintosh" first came on the scene. Believe you me, at the time that sounded a lot worse than "Dash" and nothing remotely to do with "taking on the world". The name simply became synonymous with the product and took on all of its sentiment of inspiration, dynamism and creativity. Part of the reason it was successful is exactly because the name carried few overtones of its own at the start.

What could be less threatening than a raincoat ?

A good name can easily have that initial ambiguity. Think of it like the onions that go into making an Indian curry. You start with the most insignificant ingredient of all. One that is nothing in itself but can act like a sponge to catalyse the dynamism in the dish.

As they settle in and start to brown, you add the garlic, chilli, corriander, cumin and the onions are perfectly placed to take on all of that complexity and start to serve as a conduit for tastes. At the end of it all you have a coherent wonder with flavours resonating thorought the dish. You can't taste the onions any more but they're everywhere all the same.

The name is nothing. An empty shell. It's what your turn it into that makes it good or bad. What you make it mean.

A good name will transmit whatever message is there without getting itself in the way too much while still giving a subtle clue as to the nature of the underlying product (unless that product is called 'Macintosh' of course   )



P.S. Having done the research for that post I'm now starving. See you all later !