[ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency

[MyFarm]

I've spent the last few days significantly reducing my position in DRK due to this statement by Evan:

https://i.imgur.com/Rd28JTl.jpg

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.

Well imo you should've talked to that attorney about this before trying to think it over and decide what to do with your investments by yourself.

What makes you think I didn't?

What could put some minds at risk is Darkcoin's legal team write a letter explaining why, in their legal opinion, all of this is valid.  However, I suspect they were never contacted.  I'd love to be wrong though.

[1714836317]

1714836317

[1714836317]

1714836317

[1714836317]

1714836317

[1714836317]

1714836317

[1714836317]

1714836317

[BlockaFett]

someone have hide order and eat all sell order on 0.01275  

I think it's MyFarm lol

[MyFarm]

So what you're saying is Evan rage quits and sells the password to the Darkcoin repo for $10.00 to some guy in Canada, that's it?  That new dev can do whatever he wants with the Darkcoin name and brand?  There is no legal recourse for the Darkcoin owners?  Heh.  I think not...

There is an official dev team and official foundation and official board. If they all agree to sell then I guess then, "that's it".

Are you saying that the Darkcoin foundation's board has legal control over the Darkcoin digital currency and can do what they want with a simple majority vote and darkcoin holders have no legal recourse in such an event?

[MyFarm]

LOL!! Completely absurd.  

The Foundation has already consulted with trademark lawyers over this issue and made an educated decision to proceed, but in spite of all that Darkcoin should pay a dead coin's bagholders $1,000,000... just cause a random guy on the internet said so.

This is nothing more than FUD to get the price to drop back below where you dumped.  Absurdity at its finest.

1.  Have they consulted with trademark lawyers?

2.  Have they consulted with trademark lawyers that understand virtual currency?

If so, that's great.  A letter from them would go a long way to put this argument to bed.  I have a hard time believing attorney's have been consulted, however.

[Kai Proctor]

Not long ago there was on this thread a "TV/Wikipedia" lawyer specialized in personality rights, now we got a "TV/Wikipedia" lawyer specialized in corporate business. *sigh*

[MyFarm]

Not long ago there was on this thread a "TV/Wikipedia" lawyer specialized in personality rights, now we got a "TV/Wikipedia" lawyer specialized in corporate business. *sigh*

I don't claim to be an attorney though I have quite a bit of business experience.  If Darkcoin consulted with attorneys who understand trademarks and virtual currency and they gave the green light for how all of this is being done, please have someone involved in that process state as much.  Because what I'm seeing starting to take shape is not pretty.

[JGCMiner]

LOL!! Completely absurd.  

The Foundation has already consulted with trademark lawyers over this issue and made an educated decision to proceed, but in spite of all that Darkcoin should pay a dead coin's bagholders $1,000,000... just cause a random guy on the internet said so.

This is nothing more than FUD to get the price to drop back below where you dumped.  Absurdity at its finest.

1.  Have they consulted with trademark lawyers?

2.  Have they consulted with trademark lawyers that understand virtual currency?

If so, that's great.  A letter from them would go a long way to put this argument to bed.  I have a hard time believing attorney's have been consulted, however.

A foundation board member stated as such on these boards.  Obviously I wasn't at the meeting so I don't know how much the lawyer knew about virtual currency.  Wait a bit and I will find the post...

[smooth]

So what you're saying is Evan rage quits and sells the password to the Darkcoin repo for $10.00 to some guy in Canada, that's it?  That new dev can do whatever he wants with the Darkcoin name and brand?  There is no legal recourse for the Darkcoin owners?  Heh.  I think not...

There is an official dev team and official foundation and official board. If they all agree to sell then I guess then, "that's it".

“The Foundation doesn’t own the Darkcoin project–the community does,” wrote Duffield while explaining the organization’s cause. “The Foundation is here to help. We believe that organizing fundraising efforts will be beneficial, but everyone is free to continue contributing in whatever manner is most convenient.”

Hmm.

[MyFarm]

My next question is:

Evan has shown that he is willing to pay a developer to no longer take part in their coin instead of doing a proper takeover of the coin.

What other coins has Darkcoin done this or other questionable actions to?  For example, was Darkcoin involved in the Spreadcoin dev's disappearance?  Did Mr. Spread have a nice payday from Darkcoin mere days before a competing (and arguably superior) masternode system was set to go live on mainnet?

[MyFarm]

So what you're saying is Evan rage quits and sells the password to the Darkcoin repo for $10.00 to some guy in Canada, that's it?  That new dev can do whatever he wants with the Darkcoin name and brand?  There is no legal recourse for the Darkcoin owners?  Heh.  I think not...

There is an official dev team and official foundation and official board. If they all agree to sell then I guess then, "that's it".

“The Foundation doesn’t own the Darkcoin project–the community does,” wrote Duffield while explaining the organization’s cause. “The Foundation is here to help. We believe that organizing fundraising efforts will be beneficial, but everyone is free to continue contributing in whatever manner is most convenient.”

Hmm.

Excellent find.  I suspect an attorney may one day be asking Evan why the Darkcoin community owns Darkcoin but the Dashcoin community doesn't own Dashcoin.

Will you please provide me a link to where you found that?

** Edit -- Found it: https://www.darkcoin.io/news/the-darkcoin-foundation-is-open-for-business/

[tbearhere]

Dash go up 

Limx Dev Hi Could you please tell me where you got that chart because cryptsy doesn't have anything like that that I know of.  Thank you

[balu]

My next question is:

Evan has shown that he is willing to pay a developer to no longer take part in their coin instead of doing a proper takeover of the coin.

What other coins has Darkcoin done this or other questionable actions to?  For example, was Darkcoin involved in the Spreadcoin dev's disappearance?  Did Mr. Spread have a nice payday from Darkcoin mere days before a competing (and arguably superior) masternode system were set to go live on mainnet?

You are right. It might have happened. Just like this message could have been typed in by my cat walking back and forth on the keyboard.
Before accusing, please provide some solid claims.

[BlockaFett]

So what you're saying is Evan rage quits and sells the password to the Darkcoin repo for $10.00 to some guy in Canada, that's it?  That new dev can do whatever he wants with the Darkcoin name and brand?  There is no legal recourse for the Darkcoin owners?  Heh.  I think not...

There is an official dev team and official foundation and official board. If they all agree to sell then I guess then, "that's it".

“The Foundation doesn’t own the Darkcoin project–the community does,” wrote Duffield while explaining the organization’s cause. “The Foundation is here to help. We believe that organizing fundraising efforts will be beneficial, but everyone is free to continue contributing in whatever manner is most convenient.”

Hmm.

Excellent find.  I suspect an attorney may one day be asking Evan why the Darkcoin community owns Darkcoin but the Dashcoin community doesn't own Dashcoin.

Will you please provide me a link to where you found that?

dude, read some basic law before shooting off in 50 different directions. there's many types of 'owernership' and here we are talking about naming rights.  plus this starting to read like fud...

[MyFarm]

My next question is:

Evan has shown that he is willing to pay a developer to no longer take part in their coin instead of doing a proper takeover of the coin.

What other coins has Darkcoin done this or other questionable actions to?  For example, was Darkcoin involved in the Spreadcoin dev's disappearance?  Did Mr. Spread have a nice payday from Darkcoin mere days before a competing (and arguably superior) masternode system were set to go live on mainnet?

You are right. It might have happened. Just like this message could have been typed in by my cat walking back and forth on the keyboard.
Before accusing, please provide some solid claims.

When you admit to doing something all of a sudden you become a suspect in other strange, yet similar occurrences where you have motive and ability.

[illodin]

So what you're saying is Evan rage quits and sells the password to the Darkcoin repo for $10.00 to some guy in Canada, that's it?  That new dev can do whatever he wants with the Darkcoin name and brand?  There is no legal recourse for the Darkcoin owners?  Heh.  I think not...

There is an official dev team and official foundation and official board. If they all agree to sell then I guess then, "that's it".

Are you saying that the Darkcoin foundation's board has legal control over the Darkcoin digital currency and can do what they want with a simple majority vote and darkcoin holders have no legal recourse in such an event?

No I'm not saying that. Put your strawman where the sun don't shine.

I have lost all hope of any legal recourses when it comes to crypto as long as scammers like Bobsurplus a.k.a. Robert Duskes are running rampant scamming and stealing money from people with impunity.

What I would accept though, is any decision that official dev team and official foundation and official board agrees on.

[aleix]

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" 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 in Darkcoin's future.

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.

You are making this "drama" up from your ass  
Please, go back to your farm

I wish that was true.  Let's look at the IRS's guidance on virtual currency, shall we?  http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Virtual-Currency-Guidance

How can Evan own something that is treated as property when I own billions of it as well?  And if he doesn't really own it, how can he make a legal challenge that requires his ownership?

Maybe he can.  Maybe Darkcoin has a team of amazing attorneys that understand cryptocurrency.  All I know, is those 568 shares of Google I own don't allow me to make trademark claims on behalf of Google.

I SUSPECT that whoever owns 50.000000001% of Dashcoin is going to own the Dash financial trademark.  But even then, it could be an ugly fight.  Or maybe not.  It's going to be interesting!  Or maybe not.  Heh.

+ 184.46 billion dashcoins

I think it has to do with who has control over the github repository.  And to be more precise, I think all that does is say we've had the project before the first application for a trademark, therefor we can contend the trademark.  That's it, that's it's only reason for being acquired.  So we can protect our use of the name.  

The owners of dashcoin continue to own their dashcoin which is only worth what someone is willing to pay.  Which means, btw, that if the last sale of a coin was 3 months ago for 0.00000001, and that causes the marketcap to read $3000 or something, it doesn't mean it really is worth $3000, just that that was the last sales price/marketcap that could be registered.

I bolded why your argument doesn't work for Darkcoin.

I and other Dashcoin holders are the owners of Dashcoin.  I propose that Darkcoin pay $1,000,000 in marketcap to Dashcoin holders to do a proper takeover.  If 50.1% agree, THEN you have legal precedent.  Until then, in my opinion, Darkcoin has no legal standing.

This is the worst attempt to promote a coin in this thread IMHO    

My next question is:

Evan has shown that he is willing to pay a developer to no longer take part in their coin instead of doing a proper takeover of the coin.

What other coins has Darkcoin done this or other questionable actions to?  For example, was Darkcoin involved in the Spreadcoin dev's disappearance?  Did Mr. Spread have a nice payday from Darkcoin mere days before a competing (and arguably superior) masternode system was set to go live on mainnet?

You did a bad investment, and it's your fault. Just deal with it like grown ups do.
You are making a fool of yourself here

[MyFarm]

So what you're saying is Evan rage quits and sells the password to the Darkcoin repo for $10.00 to some guy in Canada, that's it?  That new dev can do whatever he wants with the Darkcoin name and brand?  There is no legal recourse for the Darkcoin owners?  Heh.  I think not...

There is an official dev team and official foundation and official board. If they all agree to sell then I guess then, "that's it".

“The Foundation doesn’t own the Darkcoin project–the community does,” wrote Duffield while explaining the organization’s cause. “The Foundation is here to help. We believe that organizing fundraising efforts will be beneficial, but everyone is free to continue contributing in whatever manner is most convenient.”

Hmm.

Excellent find.  I suspect an attorney may one day be asking Evan why the Darkcoin community owns Darkcoin but the Dashcoin community doesn't own Dashcoin.

Will you please provide me a link to where you found that?

dude, read some basic law before shooting off in 50 different directions. there's many types of 'owernership' and here we are talking about naming rights.  plus this starting to read like fud...

There is zero legal precedent for what we are discussing here.  Decentralized assets?  Find me some caselaw there to research.  What I'm betting is Evan is correct (and what I have been arguing) and that is that the COMMUNITY owns the asset.  What I'm saying is Darkcoin is potentially opening itself up to being the entity that ends up helping create precedent.  And that's not good at this early of a stage in development. 

[MyFarm]

So what you're saying is Evan rage quits and sells the password to the Darkcoin repo for $10.00 to some guy in Canada, that's it?  That new dev can do whatever he wants with the Darkcoin name and brand?  There is no legal recourse for the Darkcoin owners?  Heh.  I think not...

There is an official dev team and official foundation and official board. If they all agree to sell then I guess then, "that's it".

Are you saying that the Darkcoin foundation's board has legal control over the Darkcoin digital currency and can do what they want with a simple majority vote and darkcoin holders have no legal recourse in such an event?

No I'm not saying that. Put your strawman where the sun don't shine.

I have lost all hope of any legal recourses when it comes to crypto as long as scammers like Bobsurplus a.k.a. Robert Duskes are running rampant scamming and stealing money from people with impunity.

What I would accept though, is any decision that official dev team and official foundation and official board agrees on.

But Evan says that the community owns the coin.  Now I'm confused.  Are you right or is he?

While you would accept most decisions, if the majority of the community disagreed with the decision, I believe there would be a valid argument in court that could result in injunctive relief or reversal.

As for legal recourse, when it comes to shitcoins and scammers, yes, there is a small chance.  But a burgeoning, established entity like Darkcoin that is based in the USA and partaking in the activities that we're discussing here?  As an investor, I am concerned enough that I sold a large portion of my coins.

[Minotaur26]

So what you're saying is Evan rage quits and sells the password to the Darkcoin repo for $10.00 to some guy in Canada, that's it?  That new dev can do whatever he wants with the Darkcoin name and brand?  There is no legal recourse for the Darkcoin owners?  Heh.  I think not...

There is an official dev team and official foundation and official board. If they all agree to sell then I guess then, "that's it".

Are you saying that the Darkcoin foundation's board has legal control over the Darkcoin digital currency and can do what they want with a simple majority vote and darkcoin holders have no legal recourse in such an event?

@MyFarm

OK, let me try this with a different example like Bitcoin so we don't get confused. As you very well observed coins are not shares in a business but property.  When you buy 20 BTC you are not buying 20 shares of Bitcoin and have no saying in the direction the project is taking your coins are just property that you acquired and you now own, just like if you would buy 20 Macbooks per my previous example.


Trademark rights can only be owned by an entity either a natural entity (a person) or corporate entity like a Foundation or a corporation. In the case of coins the tradermark right initially resides with the developer of the coin as they came up with the original idea, but many developers neglect this step to formally register their trademark.  So the first business that can prove use of the name in a commercial environment and files a trademark application may get it.  The best example is, Do you know who owns the Bitcoin trademark not everyone that owns Bitcoin  as you are trying to imply, it is owned by MtGox: The company overseeing bankruptcy proceedings for Mt. Gox hopes to raise millions by selling the 'Bitcoin' trademark.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10859773/Bitcoin-trademark-up-for-sale-at-580000.html

In this particular case the only person that could contest that trademark was probably Satoshi Nakamoto, but you only have a window of time to do that and I am sure that has expired.

I hope this makes it clear that when a developer launches a coin and assigns it a name, he owns the trademark if he is smart enough to register it. The miners that start mining the blockchain are awarded coins for their services and those coins are not shares, thus they get no special voting rights from them.  Only when the developer formally registers the trademark does he really own it, as you can see in Bitcoin that is very much not the case, as Satoshi Nakamoto went missing and did not contest it on time.

But I am absolutely positive that if you bought 51% of all Bitcoins in existence you would have 0 IP rights and MtGox would still own the Bitcoin trademark.

About the DASH process in particular, the process is absolutely being handled by Intellectual Property Lawyers in the United States.  I hope this is helpful.

[JGCMiner]

Here is the post I was referring too.

It's sad to see the coin being renamed to a brand that already has patents filed on it... moreover that is also an existing coin that's been here a while.

Those are some of the reasons why I decided to empty my DRK stash and move on. It's kind of a slap in the face for the early DRK people.

Anybody would happen to know the filing number of the challenge application? Would be interesting to see.

We moved forward under the advice of trademark attorneys.  Until the legal process is complete it's unlikely much information will be released.  Our decisions are aligned with the community as we are simply taking the necessary steps towards making this the most widely accepted anonymous and instant cryptocurrency. 

Also here he talking about how he and another lawyer set up the Foundation.

Does that mean Edward the pro poker player is the no.1 richest wallet He liked to play with numbers, didn't he?

Ex-poker pro.  I rarely play poker these days (maybe once in the last 4 months) mostly because I've been heavily involved in cryptocurrencies for a couple years now.  Prior to crypto I'd help start a social gaming company, so it's actually been quite a number of years since I considered myself a poker pro.

I don't have the richest Darkcoin wallet, however I did introduce my business partner to Darkcoin (I haven't checked recently but he may have the richest Darkcoin wallet).

I do however remain in contact with a lot of top pros in the poker community as many of the them have recently begun to take an interest in cryptocurrencies.  There are a lot of crypto gambling sites on the horizon that I know of, and when I have the opportunity I always mention Darkcoin to them.      

Fwiw, I was pretty instrumental in bringing Darkcoin to Bitfinex and can say without my involvement that would not have happened when it did, if at all.  Eventually I realized there was a need to organize things and help build the darkcoin ecosystem and I approached Evan with the idea of starting up a foundation.  We've seen a lot of mistakes made in other foundations (i.e. Bitcoin Foundation) and it was obvious if we were to move foward with this it should be done right.  As such, I brought Harold Boo (an incredibly capable attorney I've known and worked with for years) to the table to help set up the foundation as he has been involved in crypto for about a year and had previous experience structuring non-profits.  Evan's first request was that we have a strong community member involved and Chris Rimoldi was proposed.  Things kind of went from there.

Anyway, I haven't chimed in for a bit and thought I'd give a few details about how things got started with the foundation.  There is still a lot of work ahead of us with it.

-ed

I think the legal side of this is covered.

Plus, Evan didn't buy the project he only bought the github and is using it in trademark case against an different company.  So basically you saying that all dashcoin holders have a legal claim to a github account which was registered to an individual person... BS.