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

[Kai Proctor]

I actually think the logo's purpose is somewhat deeper. One aspect that I believe is crucial to Darkcoin's survival (once source is released) is remaining competitive against a carefully branded clone that intentionally avoids any of the "Dark" baggage. If we were to go open source right now I believe we'd be wide open to being completely dominated by a "light"-branded clone with strong marketing. Look at how well Hirocoin did in mere weeks, and it doesn't even have Darksend. Selecting an accessible, mainstream logo that avoids any dark connotations and doing some major work on branding reduces the scope for this.

I agree 100%.  

I'm glad you all have veto power.

The coin is named Darkcoin, you might as well embrace it some flowers next to a colorful "D" will change nothing. 

[1714961706]

1714961706

[1714961706]

1714961706

[1714961706]

1714961706

[1714961706]

1714961706

[LimLims]

The young or cool look doesn't seem to bother anyone for other currencies (e.g. Doge).

Other currencies don't have the unique marketing challenge that we face -- that is, overcoming the stigma of being the "Dark" coin, and all the connotations that arise from this in the mind of potential users & investors.

I suspect the reason this issue isn't being taken as seriously as is warranted is because the effects aren't immediately or directly felt, and because the "dark" connotations don't bother us personally. If a clone with better branding overtakes us in market share, it will become clear in retrospect that a large proportion of the market was holding back from investing in darkcoin specifically because of our branding. Except by then it will be too late. If you read up on what people think about darkcoin outside of here, you'll see a lot higher frequency of the opinion that the name & branding will prevent Darkcoin from ever gaining a significant market share. If people are thinking this way, then you can bet that it's influencing where they invest.

[watuba]

There NEEDs to be one extra added to this.

Using the current logo #1....BUT with the new "D" from #6. Evan posted a quick mock up of it a few pages back.  Who made the current logo? we need to contact him to get him to correctly swap out for the new D from #6.  That with the written "DARKCOIN" is perfect in my mind, and needs to be an optioUSA n.

I personally think #6 is awesome.  But feel we also need a "coin" .. throw at D on the existing darkcoin  

Also please note: to ensure a fair vote, only one version of each design is included. Your vote for a particular design will count for all variations on that design.

I'm expecting that an official coin graphic will be created from whichever logo is chosen, so no need to add them to the vote.

If anyone has some free time, it'd be great to see mockups of all 10 candidate logos as coins.

I feel like people are going to just vote for whichever one looks "coolest" and thus pick number 6.  But I don't think it best represents DRK and is somewhat shortchanging the project.  Darkcoin has a lot of innovation going on in all areas of cryptocurrency, not just privacy.  DRK is clever and sophisticated.  Thus, the logo needs to be clever and sophisticated.  Some of the other choices much better exemplify this, but won't win.  Maybe that's okay though, as the logo's purpose is more just to be appealing to the average person than fully embodying what the coin is.

I vote 6 also, but I'm not going for it as the coolest.  I think it looks sophisticated, smart, and also edgy. DarkCoin is a cool coin clever and sophisticated as you say, but it's also has that slight edge, slightly almost underground feel to it due to DarkSend and other innovations.

What ones do you prefer watuba?

I guess it could be seen as sophisticated, and definitely edgy.  I just think it also looks a little "young" and less trustworthy.  I actually like number 8 now for the reasons stated above.  It's certainly not as cool or "edgy" as number 6, but it's safe, clever, and still appealing.  If I were going to ten different companies to entrust my wealth with, I would pick number 8 or 2 far ahead of the others.  Then maybe 4 as a distant 3rd place.

The young or cool look doesn't seem to bother anyone for other currencies (e.g. Doge). However, I feel that the #6 looks rather professional and sophisticated. You say that everybody will go for the look, but so are the consumers, the packaging makes the product more appealing.

The thing is Doge won't last long term.  It's a fad.  Packaging is very important, and the flashiest packaging may attract the most consumers attention, but it alone doesn't bring long term success and trustworthiness.  With items that I can impulse buy, like headphones, etc, simply flashy packaging may make the product sell more and appeal, but in this market, we're trying to get people to store their wealth long term.  That requires initial appeal AND lasting trustworthiness.  Most cryptos do look very young and cool, and most will not be around in a year.  Let's stand out, and go for something in addition to cool.

[coins101]

The young or cool look doesn't seem to bother anyone for other currencies (e.g. Doge).

Other currencies don't have the unique marketing challenge that we face -- that is, overcoming the stigma of being the "Dark" coin, and all the connotations that arise from this in the mind of readers.

I suspect the reason this issue isn't being taken as seriously as is warranted is because the effects aren't immediately or directly felt, and because the "dark" connotations don't bother us personally. If a clone with better branding overtakes us in market share, it will become clear in retrospect that a large proportion of the market was holding back from investing in darkcoin specifically because of our branding. Except by then it will be too late. If you read up on what people think about darkcoin outside of here, you'll see a lot higher frequency of the opinion that the name & branding will prevent us from ever gaining a significant market share. If people are thinking this way, then you can bet that it's influencing where they invest.

In that case, we should launch a clone and keep the development tied.

Its no different to VW using the same components for Skoda or Bentley. Sokda makes a profit because it attracts a value proposition, but its engineering is based on out of date VW designs. That way VW is premium, and Skoda can remain affordable.

Lead with Darkcoin, recycle new releases every 3 months later into something else.

[watuba]

I actually think the logo's purpose is somewhat deeper. One aspect that I believe is crucial to Darkcoin's survival (once source is released) is remaining competitive against a carefully branded clone that intentionally avoids any of the "Dark" baggage. If we were to go open source right now I believe we'd be wide open to being completely dominated by a "light"-branded clone with strong marketing. Look at how well Hirocoin did in mere weeks, and it doesn't even have Darksend. Selecting an accessible, mainstream logo that avoids any dark connotations and doing some major work on branding reduces the scope for this.

I agree 100%.  

I'm glad you all have veto power.

The coin is named Darkcoin, you might as well embrace it some flowers next to a colorful "D" will change nothing.  

There is some merit to this.  If you look at Tesla for example.  Green energy companies have been notoriously unsuccessful, mostly do to a very saturated market, with tons of green energy companies touting how cool it is to be green.  Tesla just took it to the extreme, and said green is just so so so cool.  Their logo and everything fully embraces the coolness.  The thing is, there are like 100s of cryptos right now that are purely going for "cool", and I think the better way to monopolize a part of the market, would be to retain the cool, but go for something more specific and trustworthy.  This again, should be based on the developers' specific vision for the coin.

[naxin]

The young or cool look doesn't seem to bother anyone for other currencies (e.g. Doge).

Other currencies don't have the unique marketing challenge that we face -- that is, overcoming the stigma of being the "Dark" coin, and all the connotations that arise from this in the mind of potential users & investors.

If that is truly there case, then we need to change the name. It is earlier enough we still could. If being a dark coin is going to be such a challenge to get mass adoption, what is the point of calling it darkcoin?

Personally? I don't agree with a word I just said, because I also don't think we should be running from the idea of "dark" like you do. I don't think however we market it should promote that first and foremost, but at the same time it shouldn't be ignored. You can be professional and edgy at the same time.

[Kai Proctor]

I actually think the logo's purpose is somewhat deeper. One aspect that I believe is crucial to Darkcoin's survival (once source is released) is remaining competitive against a carefully branded clone that intentionally avoids any of the "Dark" baggage. If we were to go open source right now I believe we'd be wide open to being completely dominated by a "light"-branded clone with strong marketing. Look at how well Hirocoin did in mere weeks, and it doesn't even have Darksend. Selecting an accessible, mainstream logo that avoids any dark connotations and doing some major work on branding reduces the scope for this.

I agree 100%.  

I'm glad you all have veto power.

The coin is named Darkcoin, you might as well embrace it some flowers next to a colorful "D" will change nothing. 

There is some merit to this.  If you look at Tesla for example.  Green energy companies have been notoriously unsuccessful, mostly do to a very saturated market, with tons of green energy companies touting how cool it is to be green.  Tesla just took it to the extreme, and said green is just so so so cool.  Their logo and everything fully embraces the coolness.  The thing is, there are like 100s of cryptos right now that are purely going for "cool", and I think the better way to monopolize a part of the market, would be to retain the cool, but go for something more specific and trustworthy.  This again, should be based on the developers specific vision for the coin.

Then again I find the #6 b&w logo simple and sophisticated, I fail to see "coolness" as in "look we are so edgy". But beyond the design there are the qualities of the coin, coins with a wonderful design may fail in that aspect, however, I believe that Darkcoin has everything it takes to succeed.

[watuba]

The young or cool look doesn't seem to bother anyone for other currencies (e.g. Doge).

Other currencies don't have the unique marketing challenge that we face -- that is, overcoming the stigma of being the "Dark" coin, and all the connotations that arise from this in the mind of potential users & investors.

If that is truly there case, then we need to change the name. It is earlier enough we still could. If being a dark coin is going to be such a challenge to get mass adoption, what is the point of calling it darkcoin?

Personally? I don't agree with a word I just said, because I also don't think we should be running from the idea of "dark" like you do. I don't think however we market it should promote that first and foremost, but at the same time it shouldn't be ignored. You can be professional and edgy at the same time.

The more I think about it, number 2 is the best balanced.  It's professional and edgy, but also looks very trustworthy, cutting edge, and lightweight.

[LimLims]

If that is truly there case, then we need to change the name. It is earlier enough we still could. If being a dark coin is going to be such a challenge to get mass adoption, what is the point of calling it darkcoin?

Well, I argued for a name change some time ago, but the idea didn't have enough support -- basically the official line is that the name will not change. The Darkcoin brand actually does a decent job of filling the "underground" niche, but I have always felt it will prevent the coin from gaining widespread adoption. Of course, that's just an opinion, and time will tell. IMO the best that can be achieved given the circumstances is to mitigate the effects of the stigma by carefully thought out branding & marketing.

[Propulsion]

Damnit LimLims don't support that. Domain names are expensive. (and ssl certificates too!)

[LimLims]

Damnit LimLims don't support that. Domain names are expensive. (and ssl certificates too!)

Failing to secure multiple millions in market share is expensive, too. In any case, the naming issue has been finalised by the devs, so it's a moot point. The question now is how to best brand Darkcoin to secure the maximum market share.

[naxin]

The more I think about it, number 2 is the best balanced.  It's professional and edgy, but also looks very trustworthy, cutting edge, and lightweight.

I couldn't agree more. #6 just looks cool, but in my opinion, #2 or some variant of it is exactly what we should be looking for the exact reasons you said.

If that is truly there case, then we need to change the name. It is earlier enough we still could. If being a dark coin is going to be such a challenge to get mass adoption, what is the point of calling it darkcoin?

Well, I argued for a name change some time ago, but the idea didn't have enough support -- basically the official line is that the name will not change. The Darkcoin brand actually does a decent job of filling the "underground" niche, but I have always felt it will prevent the coin from gaining widespread adoption. Of course, that's just an opinion, and time will tell. IMO the best that can be achieved given the circumstances is to mitigate the effects of the stigma by carefully thought out branding & marketing.

While I don't agree with changing names or that it will prevent widespread adoption, I do agree about everything else.

Though I am curious what your definition of widespread adoption is. I think it is important that we are realistic about what widespread adoption means in cryptocurrency, especially an altcoin in the current market. I can see a world where my mother uses bitcoin. I cannot see a world my she would use any altcoin, unless a major feature/change/disruption is released of a magnitude 100x what we have already seen from all alts combined, I don't see that changing. I do think there is a very important market for altcoins, much greater than day trading and currency speculation. And it is a market I am invested in, with a very significant amount of my time, and to a lesser extent, money (more if I could afford it). And it is that market I look to when I am considering the widespread adoption of the coin, because realistically widespread adoption in terms of the general public is at the moment still questionable for bitcoin, let alone an altcoin.

Damnit LimLims don't support that. Domain names are expensive. (and ssl certificates too!)

While I don't like the idea, domain names are not expensive, nor are ssl certificates. I realize in terms of money, everything is relative, however a domain an SSL can be had for under $20. Which is lower enough to not even consider in the cost of changing names.

[LimLims]

Though I am curious what your definition of widespread adoption is. I think it is important that we are realistic about what widespread adoption means in cryptocurrency, especially an altcoin in the current market. I can see a world where my mother uses bitcoin. I cannot see a world my she would use any altcoin, unless a major feature/change/disruption is released of a magnitude 100x what we have already seen from all alts combined, I don't see that changing. I do think there is a very important market for altcoins, much greater than day trading and currency speculation. And it is a market I am invested in, with a very significant amount of my time, and to a lesser extent, money (more if I could afford it). And it is that market I look to when I am considering the widespread adoption of the coin, because realistically widespread adoption in terms of the general public is at the moment still questionable for bitcoin, let alone an altcoin.

"Widespread" is a relative term -- better to think about it in terms of a direct comparison: which approach do we think will result in the larger market share long term?

[coins101]

If that is truly there case, then we need to change the name. It is earlier enough we still could. If being a dark coin is going to be such a challenge to get mass adoption, what is the point of calling it darkcoin?

Well, I argued for a name change some time ago, but the idea didn't have enough support -- basically the official line is that the name will not change. The Darkcoin brand actually does a decent job of filling the "underground" niche, but I have always felt it will prevent the coin from gaining widespread adoption. Of course, that's just an opinion, and time will tell. IMO the best that can be achieved given the circumstances is to mitigate the effects of the stigma by carefully thought out branding & marketing.

Put the effort into DarkSend branding.

That's where the money is.

[naxin]

Though I am curious what your definition of widespread adoption is. I think it is important that we are realistic about what widespread adoption means in cryptocurrency, especially an altcoin in the current market. I can see a world where my mother uses bitcoin. I cannot see a world my she would use any altcoin, unless a major feature/change/disruption is released of a magnitude 100x what we have already seen from all alts combined, I don't see that changing. I do think there is a very important market for altcoins, much greater than day trading and currency speculation. And it is a market I am invested in, with a very significant amount of my time, and to a lesser extent, money (more if I could afford it). And it is that market I look to when I am considering the widespread adoption of the coin, because realistically widespread adoption in terms of the general public is at the moment still questionable for bitcoin, let alone an altcoin.

"Widespread" is a relative term -- better to think about it in terms of a direct comparison: which approach do we think will result in the larger market share long term?

I do see your point, but I think we share a fundamentally different viewpoint on where altcoins are going. I don't see mass public adoption even a remote possibility, not .000000000001%, in my mind it is 0.0%. (Though I do just want to make sure I am clear here, I don't think altcoins, specifically darkcoin, is worthless, I think they have some great potential and will continue to have value for years to come. My mother just will never use them for example.) At least not without the kind of major improvement I described above.

Given that viewpoint, long term, marketing in terms of the general public will be the less successful route.

But if I am wrong (which all it is a guess, hardly even an educated one, because the events leading to or away from mass adoption will likely be unpredictable chance occurrences rendering any "educatedness" of the event moot) then a marketing scheme more towards the general public absolutely would win out.

[chaeplin]

http://drk.poolhash.org/graph.html

has next block number, difficulty, 24hr avg diff, 24hr avg reward.

next block number is 46802, next block difficulty is 645.709
24hr avg diff is 447.53, 24hr avg reward is 18.965

[ErrorId]

If that is truly there case, then we need to change the name. It is earlier enough we still could. If being a dark coin is going to be such a challenge to get mass adoption, what is the point of calling it darkcoin?

Well, I argued for a name change some time ago, but the idea didn't have enough support -- basically the official line is that the name will not change. The Darkcoin brand actually does a decent job of filling the "underground" niche, but I have always felt it will prevent the coin from gaining widespread adoption. Of course, that's just an opinion, and time will tell. IMO the best that can be achieved given the circumstances is to mitigate the effects of the stigma by carefully thought out branding & marketing.

Put the effort into DarkSend branding.

That's where the money is.

While I agree DarkSend is the secret sauce. What's going to happen if when someone clones Evans work and comes up with a much better name, marketing and branding strategy?

I believe this coin has enough inivation innovation to give bitcoin a run for it's money, what I don't understand is why Evan is pigeonholing his work.

[DieCommieScum]

Shirt order update:



Guys in the US, expect your shirts this week. Heads up for those who don't check mail regularly.

I still have a spare XL and a 2XL available.

[blajde]

If that is truly there case, then we need to change the name. It is earlier enough we still could. If being a dark coin is going to be such a challenge to get mass adoption, what is the point of calling it darkcoin?

Well, I argued for a name change some time ago, but the idea didn't have enough support -- basically the official line is that the name will not change. The Darkcoin brand actually does a decent job of filling the "underground" niche, but I have always felt it will prevent the coin from gaining widespread adoption. Of course, that's just an opinion, and time will tell. IMO the best that can be achieved given the circumstances is to mitigate the effects of the stigma by carefully thought out branding & marketing.

Put the effort into DarkSend branding.

That's where the money is.

While I agree DarkSend is the secret sauce. What's going to happen if when someone clones Evans work and comes up with a much better name, marketing and branding strategy? Poof goes the market share.

I believe this coin has enough inivation to give bitcoin a run for it's money, what I don't understand is why Evan is pigeonholing his work.

Just state that Darkcoin will keep Darksend as closed source until it reaches 100$ and has a mean over 100$ for 1-2 months.

[hyeoam]

Charts here: http://crypto-prices.com/DRK