I think this revolves around 2 things:

[1] - is Darkcoin a good name "out there" in the non crypto world

[2] - is it genuinely a hindrance to adoption "out there" in the non-crypto world

I've usually thought it is a hindrance, but that's because we're kind of obsessed with "fear" of the politically incorrect and Fox News burying any chance you had of acceptance by associating you with ISIS or something.

On the other hand, people do like contrasts. Darkcoin might not be nearly the hindrance we think to adoption since by the time DRK gets "out there" there's likely to be a ton of other anons on the go with all different names and we end up shootin gourselves in the foot by ditching the one discriminating label we had that identifies us as "authentic" and "original".

Bitcoin
   |
Litecoin
   |
Darkcoin

OR...

Monero-Boolbery-Infinium-Dash  <- suddenly fades into the background

I can see the wider appeal of "Dash" - it could look good on tickers, ETFs and whatever and allow Mrs Jones to invest without feeling she's in Bill O'Reilly's sights for helping terrorists. If Darkcoin really is categorically a barier to adoption and not simply simply "dark chocolate" to bitcoin's "milk chocolate" then obviously it needs addressing in the long term. I'm just saying it might not be as evil as we think as far as the wider market is concerned (or at least "evil" in an attractive, dark chocolate way).

Maybe Darkcoin is the right name for all the reasons that we're thinking about avoiding it - i.e. it's the market space that takes the most guts to occupy but brings the most rewards for that reason.

(Just thinking aloud).

They'll be even more rare and worth even more as vintage coin history.

At least the fudders will have fun with it (we're going to "crash dash" LoL)

P.S. Neutralised. You heard it here first 

It's grown on me.

I already think DASH is better than Darkcoin.

Dash would work as a ticker as well as a name.

On a completely different theme, what about LATTICE.

I was thinking about the multi-dimensionality aspect and trying to get away from "wallets-vs-masternodes" and more towards the fact that they are tightly integrated (a masternode is a wallet and vica versa).

Lattice.

(Runs & ducks)

Take the pain now. It will be a liberating move.

+1 !

Jesus - we just got a moment's rest bite from the troll storm. No need to start one of our own.

All views respected.

I agree. I'm in 2 minds about it. I think it's great that the branding issue is on the cards but like you I'm aware of a solid stock value that's been built around the name and the concept.

At the same time, I can see a huge reason for doing it.

What's happening is that the whole 2-tier aspect of the network is now evolving into a much bigger and more powerful dimension to the project than the original feature that was it's inspiration - i.e. anonymous transactions.

Anonymous transactions is done. It will continue to advance but is now going to be just one aspect of the whole USP that this project and its architectural approach will start to deliver on over Bitcoin. Each of those 'additional features' is potentially as big a deal as anonymous transactions was - InstantX, scaleability, 2FA etc.

So continuing to call it "Darkcoin" kind of only addresses what will ultimately be only a specific aspect of the coin's feature set. Think about it - just the scaleability stuff alone is a massive headache for bitcoin - any coin !  

Lets review the basics of computing evolution for a moment.

After the PC revolution of the 70's and 80's there was almost no business process that hadn't been touched by software. However despite the widespread proliferation it reached a glass ceiling where data got trapped on a PC and to add any value to it you needed to purchase another program. What was the big breakthrough of the late 80's and 90's that precipitated the explosion to come ?....Client Server Computing !

Next thing you know we had the internet. That's because everything you do in a network is service oriented and that's why Darkcoin's dual-layer architecture that was stumbled upon during the process of trying to solve the anonymity problem is turning out to be a monumentally generalised approach that can address everything else as well. Make no mistake, Darkcoin is not out on a limb here - it's smack bang in well trodden and proven technological ground.

All you can do with a mono-layer network is pass coins around. Even if that's all you want to do, the mono-layer isn't robust enough to scale, secure or process its load quickly without major design headaches. With a dual layer, service oriented network you introduce a second dimension which lets you address all this much more efficiently. I'm sure this will come to be seen as being the totally obvious solution all along and with that I'll leave you with the most poignant remark of the day:

LTC continuing it's decent with a slightly accelerating sink rate...

It looks like a whale sugar daddy has fired in a couple of 151 DRK shots towards the end to give it a humphie up.

We'll miss you and your little "instamine" pellet shooter.


Promotion ! Now that I'm "in on the scam" hopefully I can retire and go ski-ing.

Did you make that one up all by yourself ?

When we've finished being entertained by the laughingstocks that stumble in here having lost their way to a cockfight.

Hey - that was my line. Turns out he's a plagiarist as well as a troll.

Try dismantling another drink first - better not run before you can walk  

The ridiculous thing about this whole anonymity tech debate is that it isn't even the thing that's going to make the difference. What will make the difference isn't who's got the most theoretically unbreakable anonymity, it who's got the most practical monetary properties.

In that regard you need rock solid anonymous tech in a practical domain, not a theoretical domain so you don't have to ditch the entire value proposition of your asset.

All this is already stated in the Darkcoin Wiki.



The reason there's such a fudstorm over this is that Darkcoin has far better monetary properties than the cryptonote work-in-progress offerings right now and they don't want to talk about that at any cost because it isn't just their weak point - it's their non-existant point.

A year ago, everything was up for grabs. People thought that Bitcoin would be overtaken by, for example, Peercoin. Contrast that with the situation now: Bitcoin has 487 times Peercoin's marketcap !!

FFS. In the light of that do folks seriously think that tech matters more than legacy-compliance, monetary practicality and marketcap ? That you don't need a practical and balanced approach to ANY feature enhancements whether those be anon, contracts, or whatever else ?

rotfl !

You're right - markets can often form bubbles, pump and dump assets and take off on trends which are deceptive.

What they don't do though is make a sustained valuation of assets over a year long period through pumps, dumps, bubbles and recessions unless those assets have some kind of long term viability.

Keep on harping on about why "the market isn't right" and it "should be valuing your project more highly" but all it looks like to anyone else is total sour grapes.

That would be the same broken "record" that both you and him play on every thread you can get your oar stuck into then.

Beat it on out of here and see if you can't do something useful in your own patch like getting a proper Mac wallet done.