Everyone is too busy trading the new Gold Coins in CryptoKingdom to care much about the XMR price. In fact we want it to go down so we can get more XMR.
Those wishing for lower XMR prices in order to accumulate more XMR could very easily and without notice get sideswiped by the circus surrounding the Darkcoin to Dash re-branding. |
|
|
|
|
During the last XBT/USD boom LTC peaked at 0.05 XBT and stayed over 0.02 XBT for a good 4 months. NMC peaked at 0.016 XBT.
|
|
|
|
yes possible is everyting, the same as bitcoin will reach $10k this year  by the time BTC hits 10k, XMR will be at $100 - bare minimum. I doubt it. If XBT hits 10 K USD, XMR will likely be way more than 0.01 XBT |
|
|
|
...
You've made a lot of assumptions here. Again, you should consult with an attorney.
I am not the one trying to challenge a trademark on the basis of a very dubious deal, nor do I have a position in Darkcoin that could be jeopardized by all the legal ramifications of this. I do agree that anyone who could be adversely impacted by what may become very complex litigation arising out of the Darkcoin re branding to Dash should of course seek legal advice, starting of course with anyone with a significant position in Darkcoin. |
|
|
|
WE ARE THE WRONG PEOPLE Ok. There are whole WWWRRROOONNNGGG worlds around us. Why Evan Duffield need dashcoin codebase? They are after the name in order to pick a legal fight with another company that has filed an application to register Dash as a trademark. |
|
|
|
...
You are 100% wrong here. The IP rights for the Dashcoin mark belong to the creator of the coin as well as anyone running businesses using that mark (i.e. websites to promote the coin, etc.) prior to any file for trademark. Multiple people or parties can have rights to the Dashcoin mark, and any of them can sell their rights to it. You should consult with an attorney before discussing these matters, as it's clear from your comments you do not know trademark law.
Actually it is you who are wrong. How can I oppose a mark listed in the TMOG?
Once the USPTO publishes a trademark in the TMOG, any party who believes he or she will be damaged by the registration of the trademark has 30 days either to: (1) file an opposition to the trademark with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB); or (2) request an extension of time to file a notice of opposition. http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/trademark-faqs It does not say that the person opposing has to have the exclusive rights to mark. So for example anyone who is a holder of Dashcoin could oppose a Darkcoin Foundation registration of Dash if they believe their interests can be damaged by the registration of Dash by the Darkcoin Foundation. First the jury is very much out on whether the developer of Dashcoin has the right to sell the IP rights to the coin. Furthermore even if we were to grant that the developer did have this right there has been enough commerce done on Poloniex trading Dashcoin and with the functioning of Dashcoin since the so called sale to negate if not dilute those rights. The Darkcoin Foundation is in no position and has not acted to prevent either the functioning of Dashcoin or the trading of Dashcoin. |
|
|
|
|
The first real test will come when the ether starts trading. Will the ether be worth more or less than people paid for it both in terms of XBT and USD.
|
|
|
|
...
Anyway, here is a real world case that is analogous and can shed some light on the matter. There exists a burger king in the florida that operates under the same name as the large national franchise. The existed prior to burger king being awarded a trademark (I think they might have even been the original), yet they continue to operate just fine. There are two reasons for this. a.) they had IP rights as they were in existence prior to the national franchise filing for the trademark and b.) they pose no threat as far as confusion goes to the larger franchise so it wasn't worth trying to buy out and/or shut down (which they could so easily do).
With that being said, do you seriously think dashcoin could ever present a threat against DKR/Dash? Absolutely not, which is why there has been no mention ever about shutting down the coin.
In reality with case b) there is little that the larger franchise can do unless they make a deal with pre existing burger king. In fact the existence of of the pre existing commercial use of the name puts the national trademark in jeopardy. A very good example is the Lindows / Windows case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc. Microsoft’s hold on the Windows trademark in the United States is actually on very shaky ground. What saved Microsoft's position is that Lindows was also doing business in jurisdictions where Microsoft's Windows trademark was on solid ground such as the Netherlands, in effect Microsoft was using its strong trademark rights in the Netherlands to support its weak trademark rights in the United States. So one gets a settlement where the alleged victim, Microsoft, actually pays money. Hmm ... There a two issues here. First the rights to the Dashcoin name are not the devs to sell. This is the point that MyFarm is making although I am far from convinced that acquiring a certain percentage of the Dashcoins will buy the rights to the Dashcoin name. What the Darkcoin Foundation may have acquired here is enough of an interest in the Dashcoin name to prevent the trademark registration by a third party, if and that is a big if they can show they have acquired a bona fide interest in the Dashcoin name. It may be the case is that simply owning some Dashcoin may be a better way to prevent the third party registration of Dash. This brings me to my second point there is a good possibility that any holder of Dashcoin may be able to prevent the registration of Dash by Darkcoin foundation in the event the Darkcoin Foundation succeeds in blocking the third party registration of Dash. In conclusion the Darkcoin Foundation may be able to use the name Dash; however it also may not be able to get the exclusive rights to the name. Preventing someone else from getting trademark rights to a word is a lot easier that obtaining those rights for oneself. |
|
|
|
3. Not everything needs to be in a blockchain, and not everything can be decentralised with our current level of technological advancement. The Monero core team won't crowbar decentralisation into everything unecessarily, especially when it has potentially disastrous results.
I herd monero is centralized, is it true?  Listen to the missive and you will understand. fluffypony is talking about tippero a service that is built on top of Monero. |
|
|
|
It just shows how ruthless the DRK community is that they think they can just take this name for no reason, i dont even know if it can legally be bought, since as others have said, the name belongs to the whole community.
If its worth that much, the DASH community should be paid a decent pay packet!
You are misinformed. Legally the rights to the coin are owned by the whomever created the coin, in this case it's the core dev that started it. No one is guaranteed any rights when they purchase this coin, just as no one is guaranteed any rights when they purchase bitcoin, or just like everyone can have a US dollar but it doesn't give them any rights to license it. Case Law? There is a huge difference between centralized and decentralized virtual currencies that is already recognized by an agency of the United States Government. http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html. Examples of decentralized virtual currencies are Bitcoin, Namecoin, Monero and Dashcoin. A particularly good example of a decentralized virtual currency is Monero where there was a community takeover of the currency away from the developer. It is my understanding that Darkcoin is also a decentralized virtual currency; however if the Darkcoin Foundation, the Darkcoin Developers and the Darkcoin community take the position that Darkcoin is a centralized virtual currency I will of course defer to their judgement. The key difference is that with a centralized virtual currency for example PayPal there is an administrator of the currency who controls the currency. With a decentralized virtual currency there is no person or group that has control over the currency. So with a centralized virtual currency the administrator would own the rights to the currency and would be able to sell them making the above statement correct; however with a decentralized virtual currency this is not the case. |
|
|
|
...
It looks like MyFarm just bukake'd himself on this one, as his buywall is gone now. Thanks to him a lot of Dashcoin holders were able to exit far above fair value. Ironically he did Dash a favor. Well played MyFarm.
He is closer to his target so he can lower this bid price. |
|
|
|
...
1. The opposing company gets the trademark contesting notice.
...
This is "the opposing company" https://karmiclabs.com/ |
|
|
|
|
I added an edit to my post. There is a lot of interesting things going on over at Darkcoin, so it is well worth watching. Most of this is likely very positive for XMR. Dashcoin of course has close to doubled in value.
|
|
|
|
... Now don't quote me on this (yeah right ) But I think I remember reading that the first question people are being asked is, "How much money are you carrying", and if they do not give an answer then that is considered probable cause that a crime is in progress. And then a search is conducted. And if they do answer and some I read were as little as 1k they get there money seized right on the side of the road. |
|
|
|
Now for something more humorous. Willing to buy up to 51% of all outstanding DSH at .00000025 XMR/DSH. That is my bid on Poloniex, feel free to hit it. I'll add to it as I transfer more BTC to Poloniex.
I am also happy to do private deals for BTC for 1,000,000,000+ coins at a time. PM me.
A Darkcoin supporter is trying to buy 51% of all outstanding Dashcoin on Poloniex. In order to this he needs to build a wall out of XMR in the neighbourhood of 15,000 XMR. http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dashcoin/ Here is the chart on Poloniex https://www.poloniex.com/exchange#xmr_dsh. It all relates to the re branding of Darkcoin to Dash https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=678232.msg10777298#msg10777298Edit: there may be a bit more to this: I've spent the last few days significantly reducing my position in DRK due to this statement by Evan:  As any of you in the USA smart enough to follow financial laws know, the IRS and SEC have made some rather interesting rulings regarding cryptocurrency. While I am no attorney (but make the habit of occasionally talking to one) I suspect there is going to be some... "Drama" in Darkcoin's future. I have been making posts about the important need for, "Business Acumen" in the Darkcoin ranks. Before I buy back into Darkcoin in size, I now have the requirement that a very well-seasoned business executive that a venture capitalist would love be brought onto the Darkcoin team to make and handle business decisions. Note, this kind of person is going to likely require a large, vesting offering of Darkcoin for the trouble. |
|
|
|
...
Well I can tell you that if they were poker players doing the casino circuit then that was probably all their cash. Gamblers are notorious for not keeping a stash. There argument will more than likely be they settled under duress. I haven't even read that article I just know there is so much of this going on I did a quick search and that was the first link from a credible source.
It is a great example and it illustrates why this can work very well for the state as long as they can bluff their way to a settlement. In fact you seize $100 with the objective of obtaining $10. There is zero deterrent effect here. I stand by my position that the only way to stop this kind of thing is to call the bluff right at the start, and refuse to settle. Now here is an interesting question: Do they even have to answer the question of how much cash they are carrying? It also illustrates the value of having a secret and legal stash of XMR in order to teach the state a lesson in the courts should the need arise. |
|
|
|
In the case of the two poker players in Iowa, months after their money was taken, they reached a settlement in which most of the money —$90,000 — was returned. They told CNN they believed it was the best deal they could have made at the time. Now, however, they are suing to get the rest of the money back and have asked for unspecified damages. The state of Iowa isn't giving it back and is not backing down. This is the classic mistake: To settle for getting 90% of the money back. Now they are suing after the settlement. The question becomes are their chances of success more or less now? Edit: These guys are poker players yet they do not seem to understand the concept of bluffing. My bet is with the state on this one. |
|
|
|
...
I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.
This may be correct, but regardless in this case the fault lies solely with the law enforcement agency involved. If they do not understand how the technology works they have no business using that same technology as the basis to launch raids. I'm not sure fault is the right word. Yes they apparently got it wrong (if OP on the issue is to be believed and who knows), but their job is to investigate these things based on often-unreliable information. The problem isn't really that they do that, it is that Bitcoin creates so such an enormous body of unreliable and dangerous information people may be reluctant to use it at all. This doesn't even need to involve law enforcement, at least not directly. As I said earlier, Coinbase has become much less useful to me since it has become apparent how they investigate blockchain taint meaning even innocent uses can put you under a cloud of suspicion. It makes me want to have nothing to do with it at all. I am assuming, and I may be incorrect, that were a dealing with a jurisdiction where probable cause or something very similar is needed for before a law enforcement agency can do what was described in the OP, which was a lot more than merely investigate. Yes Bitcoin has serious shortcomings when it comes to coin taint and Coinbase is adding to the problem in a big way; however this does not absolve the law enforcement agency involved if they needed probable cause or something very similar. What the OP actually may need is 1) A good lawyer, 2) The financial resources to pay for the lawyer and 3) The willingness to make an example out of the law enforcement agency involved in the courts. Edit: Hueristic is right on. In many cases law enforcement agencies and large corporations take advantage of the fact that many of their victims cannot afford to fight back even though they are well aware of the fact that they are in the wrong. In these cases when the victim does has the resources to fight back they also have the ethical and moral responsibility to not only fight back but to also make an example out of the law enforcement agency or corporation involved in the courts. |
|
|
|
...
I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.
This may be correct, but regardless in this case the fault lies solely with the law enforcement agency involved. If they do not understand how the technology works they have no business using that same technology as the basis to launch raids. |
|
|
|
One of the arguments in favour of Cryptonote over Bitcoin is of course incidents such as the following: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2653 A law enforcement raid over a relayed Bitcoin transaction http://www.coindesk.com/chainalysis-ceo-denies-launching-sybil-attack-on-bitcoin-network/ The chainanalysis 'Sybil Attack' on the Bitcoin network. As for adaptive parameters this is a feature of Cryptonote based coins that is not commonly discussed but is very important. The most visible advantage is that Cryptonote based coins do not have the 1MB maximum blocksize issue since the network adapts to the actual demand. I must say that it is this issue that led me to find out about and invest in Monero in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
