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

[MyFarm]

using these products analogy is simply retarded.. crypto currency is closer to stocks than products like big mac, banana etc.

nope, crypto currency is legally property as is a big mac. Neither convey any legal rights other than under property law. Shares on the other hand convey rights under company law including a share of ownership of the actual brand.  (look at it like shares are property with additional rights under company law, crypto currencies don't have those as they are just property)

i am not a lawyer..but why do i feel that darkcoin is destroying my property and creating confusion by buying and selling their property under my property's name?

Good thing Darkcoin isn't selling their property under your property's name. DASH =/= Dashcoin. Further, you're free to continue development at your own leisure.

Thats the point, i pointed out a few times, that all these discussions MyFarm and the other trolls are having are pure speculation.

There was no information published what that darkcoin / dashcoin deal was. The only thing we know for sure is that the github of dashcoin changed. - Does this fact makes any change to your dashcoin? NO. (You can trade, own dashcoin nothing changed at all.)

Noone is destroying anything besides the trolls themselfs.

Darkcoin is not even taking the dashcoin name, its named DASH.
(But i guess reading a word with more then 4 characters is to hard for you trolls)

One of the most concerning things is the Darkcoin community isn't screaming bloody murder about how the Dashcoin deal went down.  You're all forever talking about how you'd have to buy such an enormous amount of masternodes to compromise the network.  Yet what Evan has done is set precedent saying it is ok to take over a coin by buying out the dev and taking over the repo.  This creates a MASSIVE centralization issue for Darkcoin.  What you are all saying is it is ok for a company or government entity to approach Evan (or his eventual successor) with big $$$, buy him out, take over github, and then they have all legal rights to the coin.  They don't have to spend a penny on the open market buying up coins, they don't have to find a vulnerability in the code, they don't have to buy 4000 masternodes.  They just have to find the main developer's price.

And make no mistake, EVERYONE has a price.

Scary.

[1715247163]

1715247163

[1715247163]

1715247163

[1715247163]

1715247163

[1715247163]

1715247163

[1715247163]

1715247163

[1715247163]

1715247163

[arielbit]

This is clearly coming from someone who understands and has been involved in proper VC funded experiences. This isn't a trolling comment this is actually something every other Suit watching would say if they took the time to read all the crap which they never would.

We have all been acting like kids regarding this. If you are a business man with vision and understanding this comment should sit with you and make you ponder.

i doubt it because one thing VC's aren't is legally-dumb.  myfarm has no clue legally what he is talking about. he mentions 'no legal precedent' in every post because he thinks that means he can buy a big mac and then sue McDonalds for using his trademark lol

there was restaurant opened with the name mang donalds or mang donald (i don't remember exactly)...mcdonalds sue them and won.. dash and dashcoin seems like an easy win here.

[BlockaFett]

why buy our dev, github and other accounts? what is the purpose? unless dash dev go out on a selling spree like a sidewalk vendor (slb:dash github for sale..anybody?)

IDK but I assume it's because under trademark law the first person that traded under the name 'dash....' owns the rights to that name.  the people who mined / purchased coins deriving from the mark owner have rights to own their coins under property law but they do not have rights to make any claim on use of the dashcoin name under trademark law because they never owned it. and remember coins are not shares so they have no rights under company law like shares do they are just property.

[dreamspark]

One of the most concerning things is the Darkcoin community isn't screaming bloody murder about how the Dashcoin deal went down.  You're all forever talking about how you'd have to buy such an enormous amount of masternodes to compromise the network.  Yet what Evan has done is set precedent saying it is ok to take over a coin by buying out the dev and taking over the repo.  This creates a MASSIVE centralization issue for Darkcoin.  What you are all saying is it is ok for a company or government entity to approach Evan (or his eventual successor) with big $$$, buy him out, take over github, and then they have all legal rights to the coin.  They don't have to spend a penny on the open market buying up coins, they don't have to find a vulnerability in the code, they don't have to buy 4000 masternodes.  They just have to find the main developer's price.

And make no mistake, EVERYONE has a price.

Scary.

If you guys don't understand this then it's just pure ignorance. I have no idea which way an actual legal battle will go but the fact you think you can take over a coin by just buying out the dev and all will be okay is mind boggling.

[RenegadeMan]

using these products analogy is simply retarded.. crypto currency is closer to stocks than products like big mac, banana etc.

nope, crypto currency is legally property as is a big mac. Neither convey any legal rights other than under property law. Shares on the other hand convey rights under company law including a share of ownership of the actual brand.  (look at it like shares are property with additional rights under company law, crypto currencies don't have those as they are just property)

i am not a lawyer..but why do i feel that darkcoin is destroying my property and creating confusion by buying and selling their property under my property's name?

FFS GO AND TALK TO YOUR DEV!!!!!

Dev's done a runner?

Well there's no one to talk to then. This is what happens with anon devs.

DRK is not "destroying your property"!!!

Man oh man...this is just becoming SOOOO tedious!

why buy our dev, github and other accounts? what is the purpose? unless dash dev go out on a selling spree like a sidewalk vendor (slb:dash github for sale..anybody?)

You're asking the wrong people!

This is similar to you being on holidays and returning home to find the neighbours next door who you've have a fond relationship with have suddenly sold up and left without any word and there are new people in that house. So, instead of contacting your old neighbours and asking them what's happened and why did they leave without any warning, you're at the front door of the house banging on it continually saying "Why did you buy this house!!?? Why?? I feel like you've destroyed my relationship with my old neighbours!! Why did you do this!!??" And then when the new people say "You really need to take it up with your old neighbours" you say "I don't know where they've gone and I can't contact them" and then start repeating all over again "Why did you buy this house!!?? Why?? I feel like you've destroyed my relationship with my old neighbours!! Why did you do this!!??"

Can you see how futile this is?

You need to direct your queries to the Dashcoin dev and if you can't contact him then you need to decide whether to exit your DSH position (which is now about 4 time more valuable than it was just a week ago as a result of all of this) or continue on with DSH on a forked version. That's what you bought into when you bought a crypto from an anonymous developer.

[BlockaFett]

^ Renegade it's best to ignore because it's just FUD at this stage - I explained to arielbit and MyFarm several times they don't respond and keep posting the same thing like it hasn't been dealt with = FUD.

[qwizzie]

using these products analogy is simply retarded.. crypto currency is closer to stocks than products like big mac, banana etc.

nope, crypto currency is legally property as is a big mac. Neither convey any legal rights other than under property law. Shares on the other hand convey rights under company law including a share of ownership of the actual brand.  (look at it like shares are property with additional rights under company law, crypto currencies don't have those as they are just property)

i am not a lawyer..but why do i feel that darkcoin is destroying my property and creating confusion by buying and selling their property under my property's name?

FFS GO AND TALK TO YOUR DEV!!!!!

Dev's done a runner?

Well there's no one to talk to then. This is what happens with anon devs.

DRK is not "destroying your property"!!!

Man oh man...this is just becoming SOOOO tedious!

why buy our dev, github and other accounts? what is the purpose? unless dash dev go out on a selling spree like a sidewalk vendor (slb:dash github for sale..anybody?)

You're asking the wrong people!

This is similar to you being on holidays and returning home to find the neighbours next door who you've have a fond relationship with have suddenly sold up and left without any word and there are new people in that house. So, instead of contacting your old neighbours and asking them what's happened and why did they leave without any warning, you're at the front door of the house banging on it continually saying "Why did you buy this house!!?? Why?? I feel like you've destroyed my relationship with my old neighbours!! Why did you do this!!??" And then when the new people say "You really need to take it up with your old neighbours" you say "I don't know where they've gone and I can't contact them" and then start repeating all over again "Why did you buy this house!!?? Why?? I feel like you've destroyed my relationship with my old neighbours!! Why did you do this!!??"

Can you see how futile this is?

You need to direct your queries to the Dashcoin dev and if you can't contact him then you need to decide whether to exit your DSH position (which is now about 4 time more valuable than it was just a week ago as a result of all of this) or continue on with DSH on a forked version. That's what you bought into when you bought a crypto from an anonymous developer.

yep, that pretty much summarize it in an easy to read style ... thanks.

[arielbit]

why buy our dev, github and other accounts? what is the purpose? unless dash dev go out on a selling spree like a sidewalk vendor (slb:dash github for sale..anybody?)

IDK but I assume it's because under trademark law the first person that traded under the name 'dash....' owns the rights to that name.  the people who mined / purchased coins deriving from the mark owner have rights to own their coins under property law but they do not have rights to make any claim on use of the dashcoin name under trademark law because they never owned it. and remember coins are not shares so they have no rights under company law like shares do they are just property.

assuming you are correct..what if the owner of dash died assuming it was evan?where will the ownership go?

[oblox]

One of the most concerning things is the Darkcoin community isn't screaming bloody murder about how the Dashcoin deal went down.  You're all forever talking about how you'd have to buy such an enormous amount of masternodes to compromise the network.  Yet what Evan has done is set precedent saying it is ok to take over a coin by buying out the dev and taking over the repo.  This creates a MASSIVE centralization issue for Darkcoin.  What you are all saying is it is ok for a company or government entity to approach Evan (or his eventual successor) with big $$$, buy him out, take over github, and then they have all legal rights to the coin.  They don't have to spend a penny on the open market buying up coins, they don't have to find a vulnerability in the code, they don't have to buy 4000 masternodes.  They just have to find the main developer's price.

And make no mistake, EVERYONE has a price.

Scary.

If you guys don't understand this then it's just pure ignorance. I have no idea which way an actual legal battle will go but the fact you think you can take over a coin by just buying out the dev and all will be okay is mind boggling.

Again, not sure where all this misconception of "taking over coins" is coming from but Evan approached the lead dev about buying the name, something that the lead dev could have (if they so desired) trademarked but didn't. Evan is essentially trademarking what the original dev could have at the start of the project. For all intensive purposes, the codebase is out there to continue development should you want. By obtaining the rights (and the start date of Dashcoin's project) there is viability to contesting the trademark of a later date. The coin was on the brink of being dead as is and the only reason this is stirring so much ground is because people want want want want want. Quite frankly, no one knows the exact terms on either side... it's all speculation.

[BlockaFett]

sorry to interrupt guys (and girls) but it looks like the proof of service is getting integrated into v.0.11.2
(which is still in testing phase by the way). https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/commits/v0.11.2.x

Proof of service seems to bring the following (subject to change as its still in testing phase) :

- Ensures ports remain open and client are responsive to IX requests.
- Completely 100% decentralized. This farms out the work of checking the masternode network to the masternode network. 1% of the network is determistically selected to check another 1% of the network each block. It takes six separate checks to deactivate a node, thus making it tamper proof.
- Nodes are kept in the masternode list if they fail enough PoSe checks to deactivate. They will continue to be checked until the operator fixes them. However they will not be paid while they're failing checks.
 
exciting developments

qwizzie

nice - bump

[coingun]

sorry to interrupt guys (and girls) but it looks like the proof of service is getting integrated into v.0.11.2
(which is still in testing phase by the way). https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/commits/v0.11.2.x

Proof of service seems to bring the following (subject to change as its still in testing phase) :

- Ensures ports remain open and client are responsive to IX requests.
- Completely 100% decentralized. This farms out the work of checking the masternode network to the masternode network. 1% of the network is determistically selected to check another 1% of the network each block. It takes six separate checks to deactivate a node, thus making it tamper proof.
- Nodes are kept in the masternode list if they fail enough PoSe checks to deactivate. They will continue to be checked until the operator fixes them. However they will not be paid while they're failing checks.
 
exciting developments

qwizzie

discussion has began here if anyone cares to leave the fudding...

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/posvc-implimentation-discussion.4344

[arielbit]

using these products analogy is simply retarded.. crypto currency is closer to stocks than products like big mac, banana etc.

nope, crypto currency is legally property as is a big mac. Neither convey any legal rights other than under property law. Shares on the other hand convey rights under company law including a share of ownership of the actual brand.  (look at it like shares are property with additional rights under company law, crypto currencies don't have those as they are just property)

i am not a lawyer..but why do i feel that darkcoin is destroying my property and creating confusion by buying and selling their property under my property's name?

FFS GO AND TALK TO YOUR DEV!!!!!

Dev's done a runner?

Well there's no one to talk to then. This is what happens with anon devs.

DRK is not "destroying your property"!!!

Man oh man...this is just becoming SOOOO tedious!

why buy our dev, github and other accounts? what is the purpose? unless dash dev go out on a selling spree like a sidewalk vendor (slb:dash github for sale..anybody?)

You're asking the wrong people!

This is similar to you being on holidays and returning home to find the neighbours next door who you've have a fond relationship with have suddenly sold up and left without any word and there are new people in that house. So, instead of contacting your old neighbours and asking them what's happened and why did they leave without any warning, you're at the front door of the house banging on it continually saying "Why did you buy this house!!?? Why?? I feel like you've destroyed my relationship with my old neighbours!! Why did you do this!!??" And then when the new people say "You really need to take it up with your old neighbours" you say "I don't know where they've gone and I can't contact them" and then start repeating all over again "Why did you buy this house!!?? Why?? I feel like you've destroyed my relationship with my old neighbours!! Why did you do this!!??"

Can you see how futile this is?

You need to direct your queries to the Dashcoin dev and if you can't contact him then you need to decide whether to exit your DSH position (which is now about 4 time more valuable than it was just a week ago as a result of all of this) or continue on with DSH on a forked version. That's what you bought into when you bought a crypto from an anonymous developer.

bought a crypto from an anonymous developer

turning cryptos to big macs again?..myfarm has a better analogy on housing, read back a few pages.

[illodin]

One of the most concerning things is the Darkcoin community isn't screaming bloody murder about how the Dashcoin deal went down.  You're all forever talking about how you'd have to buy such an enormous amount of masternodes to compromise the network.  Yet what Evan has done is set precedent saying it is ok to take over a coin by buying out the dev and taking over the repo.  This creates a MASSIVE centralization issue for Darkcoin.  What you are all saying is it is ok for a company or government entity to approach Evan (or his eventual successor) with big $$$, buy him out, take over github, and then they have all legal rights to the coin.  They don't have to spend a penny on the open market buying up coins, they don't have to find a vulnerability in the code, they don't have to buy 4000 masternodes.  They just have to find the main developer's price.

And make no mistake, EVERYONE has a price.

Scary.

If you guys don't understand this then it's just pure ignorance. I have no idea which way an actual legal battle will go but the fact you think you can take over a coin by just buying out the dev and all will be okay is mind boggling.

Define "take over a coin".

All Dashcoin holders still have their coins. They work just as good as they did two weeks ago. People are mining it. People are trading it. The source is open.

And in case of DRK DASH, the case is not so simple, because there is an official foundation, foundation board, and official dev team in place. Maybe a license or some other document should be made which states who owns what, and when is full vote needed and when only board decision is enough. Perhaps masternode owners could own 30%, foundation members 30%, foundation board owns 30%, and Evan 10%.

[coingun]

Please comment on things in this new thread that are over your head and I will attempt to break it down. I don't want the discussion to stop just cause my first description was too technical.

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/posvc-implimentation-discussion.4344

[innergy]

This is clearly coming from someone who understands and has been involved in proper VC funded experiences. This isn't a trolling comment this is actually something every other Suit watching would say if they took the time to read all the crap which they never would.

We have all been acting like kids regarding this. If you are a business man with vision and understanding this comment should sit with you and make you ponder.

i doubt it because one thing VC's aren't is legally-dumb.  myfarm has no clue legally what he is talking about. he mentions 'no legal precedent' in every post because he thinks that means he can buy a big mac and then sue McDonalds for using his trademark lol

there was restaurant opened with the name mang donalds or mang donald (i don't remember exactly)...mcdonalds sue them and won.. dash and dashcoin seems like an easy win here.

And what about monero and money?
I'm gonna buy all you money supply for $10k and delete the wallet.. happy?

[thelonecrouton]

sorry to interrupt guys (and girls) but it looks like the proof of service is getting integrated into v.0.11.2
(which is still in testing phase by the way). https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/commits/v0.11.2.x

Proof of service seems to bring the following (subject to change as its still in testing phase) :

- Ensures ports remain open and client are responsive to IX requests.
- Completely 100% decentralized. This farms out the work of checking the masternode network to the masternode network. 1% of the network is determistically selected to check another 1% of the network each block. It takes six separate checks to deactivate a node, thus making it tamper proof.
- Nodes are kept in the masternode list if they fail enough PoSe checks to deactivate. They will continue to be checked until the operator fixes them. However they will not be paid while they're failing checks.
 
exciting developments

qwizzie

Pity 90% of the hashrate is centralised via 3 pools.

Why not shift blockchain security to the Masternodes using a similar Proof of Service model? It would be literally thousands of times more secure than the current useless arrangement of miners.

[toknormal]

I don't think any of you have a clue what your talking about over this names stuff.

Making it up as you're going along.

If you've got a registered trademark (which Dashcoin isn't and doesn't) then speak up. Otherwise s.t.f.u. and leave it to the lawyers.

[arielbit]

This is clearly coming from someone who understands and has been involved in proper VC funded experiences. This isn't a trolling comment this is actually something every other Suit watching would say if they took the time to read all the crap which they never would.

We have all been acting like kids regarding this. If you are a business man with vision and understanding this comment should sit with you and make you ponder.

i doubt it because one thing VC's aren't is legally-dumb.  myfarm has no clue legally what he is talking about. he mentions 'no legal precedent' in every post because he thinks that means he can buy a big mac and then sue McDonalds for using his trademark lol

there was restaurant opened with the name mang donalds or mang donald (i don't remember exactly)...mcdonalds sue them and won.. dash and dashcoin seems like an easy win here.

And what about monero and money?

what about money and "money" mayweather? ....non issue btw.

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

SCENARIOS: by Tao Of Satoshi

1. https://twitter.com/taoofsatoshi/status/577544991083487232

2. https://twitter.com/taoofsatoshi/status/577545489358393344

Conclusion: https://twitter.com/taoofsatoshi/status/577547432269094913

Please RT if you're on Twitter, and bump if it gets buried in useless crap! Thanks.

Cheers,

Tao

[oblox]

sorry to interrupt guys (and girls) but it looks like the proof of service is getting integrated into v.0.11.2
(which is still in testing phase by the way). https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/commits/v0.11.2.x

Proof of service seems to bring the following (subject to change as its still in testing phase) :

- Ensures ports remain open and client are responsive to IX requests.
- Completely 100% decentralized. This farms out the work of checking the masternode network to the masternode network. 1% of the network is determistically selected to check another 1% of the network each block. It takes six separate checks to deactivate a node, thus making it tamper proof.
- Nodes are kept in the masternode list if they fail enough PoSe checks to deactivate. They will continue to be checked until the operator fixes them. However they will not be paid while they're failing checks.
 
exciting developments

qwizzie

Pity 90% of the hashrate is centralised via 3 pools.

Why not shift blockchain security to the Masternodes using a similar Proof of Service model? It would be literally thousands of times more secure than the current useless arrangement of miners.

That's one of the primary reasons POS coins suck is because the largest holders are also responsible for the new money supply. With a POW mining scheme, anyone can fire up some hash and try mining to obtain coins. If it was strictly masternodes securing the network, only those with capital (namely 1k blocks) get new coins unless a person goes out and buys them.