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

[TanteStefana]

Is it already established how many coins are needed to start a DarkSend "mixer" node? Is it fixed on 1000 or was that only an example?

If I need 1000 then I guess I should start buying slowly before more people will start to get the same idea.

Just a random thought from your post.

There are plenty of people that want to benefit financially from running a master node, but either can't afford to, can't do the technical support for DDoS or can't afford to input the time.

Is there a way to create a service for running master nodes where people with DRK can work with people that got the know-how for an agreed profit split?  Handing over 1,000 DRK takes a lot of trust and I don't think anyone would do that except in very rare situations. But a solution might bring in lots of people that would otherwise be sat on the sidelines not securing the network.

Someone was talking about p2pool and wallets being kept separate?

Well, Evan has plans for this, for securing it at least to some degree, but yes, I could see a P2pool type of setup for people who want more of a service to watch over it.  but then we'd be working off a single ip address... not sure how the nodes would be picked up by the system?

[1713915535]

1713915535

[1713915535]

1713915535

[coins101]

Every miner is welcomed aboard! We just added 3 more dedicated servers to our cluster, now the pools are snappier. We also upgraded MPOS, fixed the shares issues regarding the x11 algorythm. Also, we have 16 stratums to serve our users. Join us to enjoy the benefits of our strong architecture and knowledge!

What shares issue?

[Kai Proctor]

Every miner is welcomed aboard! We just added 3 more dedicated servers to our cluster, now the pools are snappier. We also upgraded MPOS, fixed the shares issues regarding the x11 algorythm. Also, we have 16 stratums to serve our users. Join us to enjoy the benefits of our strong architecture and knowledge!

What shares issue?

Old news, pre-DGW I think.

[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 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.

The more I think about it, the more this idea makes sense. If Darkcoin will be a niche product because of branding, why not fill the other niche ourselves before others do, with a "light"-branded sister coin?

New publicity-friendly name, fair launch, focus on privacy. Let Darkcoin be the testbed and bring across any changes when it's stable. We're in a unique position to capture the subset of the market that are choosing not to invest in Darkcoin because of its branding, because we can implement darksend before it's open source (that is, if Evan gives the ok). I don't see that there's much to lose with this strategy. We can be sure that others will do exactly this once Darkcoin goes open source, so why not capture that market now, in a way that lets existing Darkcoin investors get in early and mitigate their risks?

[eltito]

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.

The more I think about it, the more this idea makes sense. If Darkcoin will be a niche product because of branding, why not fill the other niche ourselves before others do, with a "light"-branded sister coin?

New publicity-friendly name, fair launch, focus on privacy. Let Darkcoin be the testbed and bring across any changes when it's stable. We're in a unique position to capture the subset of the market that are choosing not to invest in Darkcoin because of its branding, because we can implement darksend before it's open source (that is, if Evan gives the ok). I don't see that there's much to lose with this strategy. We can be sure that others will do exactly this once Darkcoin goes open source, so why not capture that market now, in a way that lets existing Darkcoin investors get in early and mitigate their risks?

If the sole hangup is branding, doing this would 100% destroy Darkcoin.  There is zero reason to hold DRK if there is a better branded, identical alternative (from the same dev, no less).

Even talking about this openly on this thread is dangerous.  More so given your semi-official affiliation with the dev team.

[illodin]

Couldn't the two differently themed and named coins use the same blockchain and be totally interchangeable?

[TanteStefana]

The more I think about it, the more this idea makes sense. If Darkcoin will be a niche product because of branding, why not fill the other niche ourselves before others do, with a "light"-branded sister coin?

New publicity-friendly name, fair launch, focus on privacy. Let Darkcoin be the testbed and bring across any changes when it's stable. We're in a unique position to capture the subset of the market that are choosing not to invest in Darkcoin because of its branding, because we can implement darksend before it's open source (that is, if Evan gives the ok). I don't see that there's much to lose with this strategy. We can be sure that others will do exactly this once Darkcoin goes open source, so why not capture that market now, in a way that lets existing Darkcoin investors get in early and mitigate their risks?

I've been thinking of this, but can't figure out how to make a second coin without taking the market away from darkcoin  

However, now that we're going for 'total anonymity', or as close as is possible with Darkcoin, perhaps the lighter version can just be "hard to follow", simpler conjoin like Evan originally planned?

But then where would that leave Darkcoin?  only to serve those with nefarious intentions?  Or maybe as a main storage repository?  If the latter might be the case, perhaps Darkcoin itself could live a double life, one of "pretty good privacy" and one that's "none of your business buddy!" and one could keep their balance in either spot, depending if one is for savings and one for spending?

Or?  I mean, I don't want Darkcoin hurt, I'm invested in it.

[Kai Proctor]

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.

The more I think about it, the more this idea makes sense. If Darkcoin will be a niche product because of branding, why not fill the other niche ourselves before others do, with a "light"-branded sister coin?

New publicity-friendly name, fair launch, focus on privacy. Let Darkcoin be the testbed and bring across any changes when it's stable. We're in a unique position to capture the subset of the market that are choosing not to invest in Darkcoin because of its branding, because we can implement darksend before it's open source (that is, if Evan gives the ok). I don't see that there's much to lose with this strategy. We can be sure that others will do exactly this once Darkcoin goes open source, so why not capture that market now, in a way that lets existing Darkcoin investors get in early and mitigate their risks?

Bad idea. Darkcoin all the way. (But hey that's me)

I've been thinking of this, but can't figure out how to make a second coin without taking the market away from darkcoin 

[...]

That's exactly what can happen. And that's a bad signal now for any investor.

[CHAOSiTEC]

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.

The more I think about it, the more this idea makes sense. If Darkcoin will be a niche product because of branding, why not fill the other niche ourselves before others do, with a "light"-branded sister coin?

New publicity-friendly name, fair launch, focus on privacy. Let Darkcoin be the testbed and bring across any changes when it's stable. We're in a unique position to capture the subset of the market that are choosing not to invest in Darkcoin because of its branding, because we can implement darksend before it's open source (that is, if Evan gives the ok). I don't see that there's much to lose with this strategy. We can be sure that others will do exactly this once Darkcoin goes open source, so why not capture that market now, in a way that lets existing Darkcoin investors get in early and mitigate their risks?

If the sole hangup is branding, doing this would 100% destroy Darkcoin.  There is zero reason to hold DRK if there is a better branded, identical alternative (from the same dev, no less).

Even talking about this openly on this thread is dangerous.  More so given your semi-official affiliation with the dev team.

thats a terrible idea, you will end killing off darkcoin, because your more or less saying, without words i might add, that one coin is for "evil" purposes, while the other is for "good" purposes...

[NutMasterTardd]

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.

The more I think about it, the more this idea makes sense. If Darkcoin will be a niche product because of branding, why not fill the other niche ourselves before others do, with a "light"-branded sister coin?

New publicity-friendly name, fair launch, focus on privacy. Let Darkcoin be the testbed and bring across any changes when it's stable. We're in a unique position to capture the subset of the market that are choosing not to invest in Darkcoin because of its branding, because we can implement darksend before it's open source (that is, if Evan gives the ok). I don't see that there's much to lose with this strategy. We can be sure that others will do exactly this once Darkcoin goes open source, so why not capture that market now, in a way that lets existing Darkcoin investors get in early and mitigate their risks?

If the sole hangup is branding, doing this would 100% destroy Darkcoin.  There is zero reason to hold DRK if there is a better branded, identical alternative (from the same dev, no less).

Even talking about this openly on this thread is dangerous.  More so given your semi-official affiliation with the dev team.

thats a terrible idea, you will end killing off darkcoin, because your more or less saying, without words i might add, that one coin is for "evil" purposes, while the other is for "good" purposes...

Why not just re-brand Darkcoin?

[patrolman]

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.

The more I think about it, the more this idea makes sense. If Darkcoin will be a niche product because of branding, why not fill the other niche ourselves before others do, with a "light"-branded sister coin?

New publicity-friendly name, fair launch, focus on privacy. Let Darkcoin be the testbed and bring across any changes when it's stable. We're in a unique position to capture the subset of the market that are choosing not to invest in Darkcoin because of its branding, because we can implement darksend before it's open source (that is, if Evan gives the ok). I don't see that there's much to lose with this strategy. We can be sure that others will do exactly this once Darkcoin goes open source, so why not capture that market now, in a way that lets existing Darkcoin investors get in early and mitigate their risks?

To be honest, I turned away from Darkcoin the very first time I came across it because I'm not really into the whole "dark side" thing and also because I doubted it could become widely accepted with a name like "Darkcoin", but thankfully made my way back here after seeing it mentioned a few times in trollboxes on exchanges and I'm slowly stocking up on DRK because I believe is it innovative.

I also think that the fact that so many coins were mined in the first 48 hours will always be at the back of some people's minds and perhaps prevent some from investing.

Probably someone (or many) will launch a clone of Darkcoin when they can (with DarkSend) with the main attraction being a more family friendly name. Why not beat them to it? I quite like the idea, but could both be successful? No doubt there are a few here heavily invested in DRK, maybe they  would be less keen to support a split.

[n00bnoxious]

Probably someone (or many) will launch a clone of Darkcoin when they can (with DarkSend) with the main attraction being a more family friendly name. Why not beat them to it? I quite like the idea, but could both be successful? No doubt there are a few here heavily invested in DRK, maybe they  would be less keen to support a split.

Limecoin has already done this. Launched today.

[NutMasterTardd]

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.

The more I think about it, the more this idea makes sense. If Darkcoin will be a niche product because of branding, why not fill the other niche ourselves before others do, with a "light"-branded sister coin?

New publicity-friendly name, fair launch, focus on privacy. Let Darkcoin be the testbed and bring across any changes when it's stable. We're in a unique position to capture the subset of the market that are choosing not to invest in Darkcoin because of its branding, because we can implement darksend before it's open source (that is, if Evan gives the ok). I don't see that there's much to lose with this strategy. We can be sure that others will do exactly this once Darkcoin goes open source, so why not capture that market now, in a way that lets existing Darkcoin investors get in early and mitigate their risks?

To be honest, I turned away from Darkcoin the very first time I came across it because I'm not really into the whole "dark side" thing and also because I doubted it could become widely accepted with a name like "Darkcoin", but thankfully made my way back here after seeing it mentioned a few times in trollboxes on exchanges and I'm slowly stocking up on DRK because I believe is it innovative.

I also think that the fact that so many coins were mined in the first 48 hours will always be at the back of some people's minds and perhaps prevent some from investing.

Probably someone (or many) will launch a clone of Darkcoin when they can (with DarkSend) with the main attraction being a more family friendly name. Why not beat them to it? I quite like the idea, but could both be successful? No doubt there are a few here heavily invested in DRK, maybe they  would be less keen to support a split.

It's definitely an innovative coin, backed by an amazing dev team. I just can't help thinking that the brand will prevent this coin from being successful.

[patrolman]

Couldn't the two differently themed and named coins use the same blockchain and be totally interchangeable?

I think this could be a good idea if it's possible, but then even the cleaner coin might be associated with the "nefarious" Darkcoin.

[eltito]

Probably someone (or many) will launch a clone of Darkcoin when they can (with DarkSend) with the main attraction being a more family friendly name. Why not beat them to it? I quite like the idea, but could both be successful? No doubt there are a few here heavily invested in DRK, maybe they  would be less keen to support a split.

Limecoin has already done this. Launched today.

No DarkSend.  Not a clone.  Not even close.

[organizer]

Why not just re-brand Darkcoin?

I can't believe there are still branding discussions going in relating to the "success" of the coin. This coin has (had?) a huge early-to-market advantage when it comes to anonymous transactions. With Zerocoin/Cash looming in the horizon, you guys really need to take a step back and look at the actual challenges to DRK, not these nonsensical naming/logo issues everyone seems fixated on.

1. DRK has to work. It's still in beta, so this is all in the developer's hands. A better understood roadmap to milestones and possible delivery dates would help.

2. Needs to be "certified" on some level by a credible "white-hat" of some sort. If some exploit or vulnerability is exposed post launch, the coin is doomed. Again, this should be already lined up and possibly be working with Evan on third-party testing.

3. Evan needs to be put in front and center at events, conventions, seminars, whatever. talking.

Why? Look at Zerocoin as the competitor. Google it. Things like Forbes come up, constant mentions of Johns Hopkins University... other incredible terms like Cryptography professor, etc.

This is what you are competing against. Any budget you have for "marketing" should mostly be spent on points #2 and #3. Everything else is useless.

[eltito]

Why not just re-brand Darkcoin?

I can't believe there are still branding discussions going in relating to the "success" of the coin. This coin has (had?) a huge early-to-market advantage when it comes to anonymous transactions. With Zerocoin/Cash looming in the horizon, you guys really need to take a step back and look at the actual challenges to DRK, not these nonsensical naming/logo issues everyone seems fixated on.

1. DRK has to work. It's still in beta, so this is all in the developer's hands. A better understood roadmap to milestones and possible delivery dates would help.

2. Needs to be "certified" on some level by a credible "white-hat" of some sort. If some exploit or vulnerability is exposed post launch, the coin is doomed. Again, this should be already lined up and possibly be working with Evan on third-party testing.

3. Evan needs to be put in front and center at events, conventions, seminars, whatever. talking.

Why? Look at Zerocoin as the competitor. Google it. Things like Forbes come up, constant mentions of Johns Hopkins University... other incredible terms like Cryptography professor, etc.

This is what you are competing against. Any budget you have for "marketing" should mostly be spent on points #2 and #3. Everything else is useless.

Absolutely correct.  EVERYTHING hinges on DarkSend working as advertised.  Then getting the word out and beating Zerocoin to full implementation.

[Kai Proctor]

Why not just re-brand Darkcoin?

I can't believe there are still branding discussions going in relating to the "success" of the coin. This coin has (had?) a huge early-to-market advantage when it comes to anonymous transactions. With Zerocoin/Cash looming in the horizon, you guys really need to take a step back and look at the actual challenges to DRK, not these nonsensical naming/logo issues everyone seems fixated on.

1. DRK has to work. It's still in beta, so this is all in the developer's hands. A better understood roadmap to milestones and possible delivery dates would help.

2. Needs to be "certified" on some level by a credible "white-hat" of some sort. If some exploit or vulnerability is exposed post launch, the coin is doomed. Again, this should be already lined up and possibly be working with Evan on third-party testing.

3. Evan needs to be put in front and center at events, conventions, seminars, whatever. talking.

Why? Look at Zerocoin as the competitor. Google it. Things like Forbes come up, constant mentions of Johns Hopkins University... other incredible terms like Cryptography professor, etc.

This is what you are competing against. Any budget you have for "marketing" should mostly be spent on points #2 and #3. Everything else is useless.

Moreover, it was already discussed and dismissed I don't know why this come up again.
Embrace the name, love it and others will love it too  

[organizer]

The more I think about it, the more this idea makes sense. If Darkcoin will be a niche product because of branding, why not fill the other niche ourselves before others do, with a "light"-branded sister coin?

New publicity-friendly name, fair launch, focus on privacy. Let Darkcoin be the testbed and bring across any changes when it's stable. We're in a unique position to capture the subset of the market that are choosing not to invest in Darkcoin because of its branding, because we can implement darksend before it's open source (that is, if Evan gives the ok). I don't see that there's much to lose with this strategy. We can be sure that others will do exactly this once Darkcoin goes open source, so why not capture that market now, in a way that lets existing Darkcoin investors get in early and mitigate their risks?

Lims, we talked a little while you were setting up as the marketing guy. Just to be frank and honest, this is a terrible thought and you are just feeding these distractions about branding and marketing when the name and/or logo will have absolutely NO impact on the success or failure of the coin. Brands build themselves, lots of people talk shit about doing X,Y,Z to create a brand. But in the end, it needs to do what it says it does.

See my earlier post about lack of focus in this community.

[organizer]

Absolutely correct.  EVERYTHING hinges on DarkSend working as advertised.  Then getting the word out and beating Zerocoin to full implementation.

I can't reiterate it enough. If Zerocoin/cash whatever it is halfway has it's act together, DRK will not be the "anonymous" coin. Another example, look at the second-coming of crypto, Ethereum. They gave some wonderful talks at some conferences and clearly understand the need to get the techno-mumbo-jumbo out to the public first... I don't know if Ethereum is anything, but you can bet if/when they ever launch it will get mass attention by investors, miners, etc. because of this perception of doing something "huge".