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

[nzminer]

Firstly, Darksend should be rebranded to "DarkPay"
Secondly, when the new logo is launched, it should totally replace the logo that has been pasted ontop of the litecoin wallet logo, looks unprofessional.
Thirdly, darksend, or whatever it may be rebranded as, should be implemented ASAP.

[1714248201]

1714248201

[1714248201]

1714248201

[1714248201]

1714248201

[1714248201]

1714248201

[1714248201]

1714248201

[TanteStefana]

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  

LOL, yes, we need to lay this to rest.  Now that I think about it, I like the #2 logo.  It gives the feel of technology so strongly, you can't think of it as something nefarious.  It's very good.

And Darkcoin is a good name, it plays against Litecoin and reflects the inability to see, as in your personal, private transactions.  That's what it was always supposed to be about, that's what we should stress.  It shouldn't kill the coin because some people don't like the name, they'll love the product!  

And there is an element to trust here.  Anyone can clone a coin, but those cloners usually disappear, we have a dedicated development team that's proven themselves.  They've garnered our trust as a community, and we know they'll lead the way through any bumps in the road, pretty much without fear!  Whereas I see bitcoin dragged down by fear because they lost their leader in Satoshi Nakamoto.  We know who Evan is, and we'll not let him go, LOL.

[fearcoka]

And there is an element to trust here.  Anyone can clone a coin, but those cloners usually disappear, we have a dedicated development team that's proven themselves.  They've garnered our trust as a community, and we know they'll lead the way through any bumps in the road, pretty much without fear! Whereas I see bitcoin dragged down by fear because they lost their leader in Satoshi Nakamoto.  We know who Evan is, and we'll not let him go, LOL.

Ouch man ill stick around dont worry

[TanteStefana]

I really should have been a cheerleader in high school!  Too bad I was so ugly, RoFLMAO     

[forzendiablo]

great coin
but price sux totaly!
i dont get people

[nzminer]

How does darksend compare to fedoracoin or anoncoin anyway?

[LimLims]

Here's the thing: I accept the fact that the Darkcoin name is not changing, and I stated as such to make people very clear that this has been decided.

All I'm doing is recognising that there is a significant segment of the market that will be wary of the current brand, which we might be able to reach, and brainstorming how we might reach it. If people genuinely believe that us launching a differently branded sister-coin might kill Darkcoin, then the implication that this is exactly what will happen when others inevitably do exactly what I'm suggesting we do. I'm very surprised that people think this is somehow "dangerous" to talk about. Surely it's more dangerous not to talk about it? Or y'know, we could just stick our heads in the sand and hope everything works out.

[coins101]

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.

Apple died until is launched a new mac with round edges and see through plastic painted a shade of pastel crap.  It was no more technically advanced. People were simply paying for brand coolness.  Apple also made the iPhone off the back of white headphones that gave people a way to link themselves to cool brand identity when they purchased an iPod.

Apple is all about making products look good and giving users a way to associate with that cool by just buying their stuff. It did use to have innovation inside too, but it really took existing ideas and made them look better and gave them better form factor.

There is no reason for a polo shirt to cost over $100 when its cost of production is less than $3. People spend the extra $93 on a logo that gives them a brand association.

Branding is everything and nothing. Get it right and you end up with everything, get it wrong and you end up with nothing.

There is no reason for Litecoin to exist. It does so because it calls itself silver to bitcoin's gold.

I'm not staked on the idea of darkcoin branding. It is important, but Darksend is the term that everyone will be using. That needs to be right.

A second coin? Who knows. But why not make it extra hard for a clone to set-up by beating them to the punch? We can have our own bitcoin / litecoin thing going on. That would make cheap headlines and extra column inches. It would need to be handled correctly to avoid diluting the existing message. But an alt-coin with a stock split kind of thing to deter potential clones? Hmm.

EDIT : Fcuk it....we can airdrop a 50% premine to existing darkcoin holders after 6 months of darksend launch and and push up the price of darkcoin in the meantime

[AnonyMint]

Per our upthread technical discussion, I now realize that the traceable ring signature may be the way to prevent denial-of-service, eliminate the collateral payment and eliminate the ability of the Master node to correlate the inputs and outputs of a transaction. Thus providing absolute anonymity! Yeah!

http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/389.pdf

Perhaps something to consider for version 2?

[Propulsion]

Here's the thing: I accept the fact that the Darkcoin name is not changing, and I stated as such to make people very clear that this has been decided.

All I'm doing is recognising that there is a significant segment of the market that will be wary of the current brand, which we might be able to reach, and brainstorming how we might reach it. If people genuinely believe that us launching a differently branded sister-coin might kill Darkcoin, then the implication that this is exactly what will happen when others inevitably do exactly what I'm suggesting we do. I'm very surprised that people think this is somehow "dangerous" to talk about. Surely it's more dangerous not to talk about it? Or y'know, we could just stick our heads in the sand and hope everything works out.

If Evan created a second coin, Darkcoin would lose its credibility right away. It would make Evan appear as a altcoin P&D creator and nothing more. Not to mention if it used the same damn specs, half the market cap would be destroyed. Terrible idea. The trolls have shown up. Darkcoin as a name and brand are gaining credibility and really starting to scare some people too. (Look at the last posts in the anoncoin thread. Seriously.)

There are now many services and references on the internet that point to Darkcoin (name wise) as well. Changing it would be a disaster. It would cause most people to loose faith in the community and also confuse new investors by not knowing if the project was changed, abandoned, or replaced.

Currently as it stands, I personally believe that the name should stay as Darkcoin and no spinoff coin should be made by Evan.

[Propulsion]

Per our upthread technical discussion, I now realize that the traceable ring signature may be the way to prevent denial-of-service, eliminate the collateral payment and eliminate the ability of the Master node to correlate the inputs and outputs of a transaction. Thus providing absolute anonymity! Yeah!

http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/389.pdf

Perhaps something to consider for version 2?

I like you.

[tifozi]

Per our upthread technical discussion, I now realize that the traceable ring signature may be the way to prevent denial-of-service, eliminate the collateral payment and eliminate the ability of the Master node to correlate the inputs and outputs of a transaction. Thus providing absolute anonymity! Yeah!

http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/389.pdf

Perhaps something to consider for version 2?

I like you.

This is why I posted a few pages ago when there was actually a troll trying to piggyback on AnonyMint's valid feedbacks. He had some bad beef with members very early in this coin's lifecycle I'm guessing, but AnonyMint is legit. Click on his profile and check his posts in Economics subforums. You will not be disappointed.

[Kai Proctor]

Here's the thing: I accept the fact that the Darkcoin name is not changing, and I stated as such to make people very clear that this has been decided.

All I'm doing is recognising that there is a significant segment of the market that will be wary of the current brand, which we might be able to reach, and brainstorming how we might reach it. If people genuinely believe that us launching a differently branded sister-coin might kill Darkcoin, then the implication that this is exactly what will happen when others inevitably do exactly what I'm suggesting we do. I'm very surprised that people think this is somehow "dangerous" to talk about. Surely it's more dangerous not to talk about it? Or y'know, we could just stick our heads in the sand and hope everything works out.

If Evan created a second coin, Darkcoin would lose its credibility right away. It would make Evan appear as a altcoin P&D creator and nothing more. Not to mention if it used the same damn specs, half the market cap would be destroyed. Terrible idea. The trolls have shown up. Darkcoin as a name and brand are gaining credibility and really starting to scare some people too. (Look at the last posts in the anoncoin thread. Seriously.)

There are now many services and references on the internet that point to Darkcoin (name wise) as well. Changing it would be a disaster. It would cause most people to loose faith in the community and also confuse new investors by not knowing if the project was changed, abandoned, or replaced.

Currently as it stands, I personally believe that the name should stay as Darkcoin and no spinoff coin should be made by Evan.

+1 Why invest in a coin when we know that a clone will be created by the same dev. They become substitutes not complements.

[alxs]

Here's the thing: I accept the fact that the Darkcoin name is not changing, and I stated as such to make people very clear that this has been decided.

All I'm doing is recognising that there is a significant segment of the market that will be wary of the current brand, which we might be able to reach, and brainstorming how we might reach it. If people genuinely believe that us launching a differently branded sister-coin might kill Darkcoin, then the implication that this is exactly what will happen when others inevitably do exactly what I'm suggesting we do. I'm very surprised that people think this is somehow "dangerous" to talk about. Surely it's more dangerous not to talk about it? Or y'know, we could just stick our heads in the sand and hope everything works out.

If Evan created a second coin, Darkcoin would lose its credibility right away. It would make Evan appear as a altcoin P&D creator and nothing more. Not to mention if it used the same damn specs, half the market cap would be destroyed. Terrible idea. The trolls have shown up. Darkcoin as a name and brand are gaining credibility and really starting to scare some people too. (Look at the last posts in the anoncoin thread. Seriously.)

There are now many services and references on the internet that point to Darkcoin (name wise) as well. Changing it would be a disaster. It would cause most people to loose faith in the community and also confuse new investors by not knowing if the project was changed, abandoned, or replaced.

Currently as it stands, I personally believe that the name should stay as Darkcoin and no spinoff coin should be made by Evan.

+1 Why invest in a coin when we know that a clone will be created by the same dev. They become substitutes not complements.

Because want a coin that serves truly provides decentralized anonymity

[raze182]

As the designer of #8, I still think #6 is by far the best. #2 just seems a bit too busy and probably won't scale well, but it seems like some people like it more than #6 because of its color scheme. The color scheme can be changed very easily, so I think we should bet too hung up on a design because it's "darkness" or lack therof. I think that's something that can be settled after a design is chosen.

Just an example of what could be done for those who think #6 is too dark (using #2's color scheme):

[organizer]

Apple died until is launched a new mac with round edges and see through plastic painted a shade of pastel crap.  It was no more technically advanced. People were simply paying for brand coolness.  Apple also made the iPhone off the back of white headphones that gave people a way to link themselves to cool brand identity when they purchased an iPod.

Apple is all about making products look good and giving users a way to associate with that cool by just buying their stuff. It did use to have innovation inside too, but it really took existing ideas and made them look better and gave them better form factor.

There is no reason for a polo shirt to cost over $100 when its cost of production is less than $3. People spend the extra $93 on a logo that gives them a brand association.

Branding is everything and nothing. Get it right and you end up with everything, get it wrong and you end up with nothing.

There is no reason for Litecoin to exist. It does so because it calls itself silver to bitcoin's gold.

I'm not staked on the idea of darkcoin branding. It is important, but Darksend is the term that everyone will be using. That needs to be right.

A second coin? Who knows. But why not make it extra hard for a clone to set-up by beating them to the punch? We can have our own bitcoin / litecoin thing going on. That would make cheap headlines and extra column inches. It would need to be handled correctly to avoid diluting the existing message. But an alt-coin with a stock split kind of thing to deter potential clones? Hmm.

EDIT : Fcuk it....we can airdrop a 50% premine to existing darkcoin holders after 6 months of darksend launch and and push up the price of darkcoin in the meantime

I don't give a fuck what the coin is called. It is what it is.

Your example about Apple points out one valid thing, brands can evolve. DarkCoin isn't even a brand, it's an unproven technology still at this point. I believe it will work as outlined by Evan, but that alone won't put it over the top. It won't be the fucking logo either.

The point here is, take a moment and google Zercoin. Look at the media they've gotten. Look at the keywords you see when you read the articles. Now a month or more ago, people donated to a "marketing" fund and there should be expectations of something happening other than your typical crapcoin "bounties". All supporters of the coin should ask, has anything really been done? Those guys have gotten attention either speaking to the media

There were discussions of some very essential and basic steps that could be taken to get the coin elevated to start to be noticed outside the world of BitCoinTalk. These means media outreach, speaking at crypto events, etc.

I see no new articles, no upcoming appearances or much in the way of discussions outside of this naming and branding stuff that is nothing more than going after the lowest hanging fruit. By this point, to be honest, there should be at least a handful of articles about DarkCoin on the front page.

Whatever, aside from Evan and Anonymint, reading this thread makes me want to sell.

[Kai Proctor]

Here's the thing: I accept the fact that the Darkcoin name is not changing, and I stated as such to make people very clear that this has been decided.

All I'm doing is recognising that there is a significant segment of the market that will be wary of the current brand, which we might be able to reach, and brainstorming how we might reach it. If people genuinely believe that us launching a differently branded sister-coin might kill Darkcoin, then the implication that this is exactly what will happen when others inevitably do exactly what I'm suggesting we do. I'm very surprised that people think this is somehow "dangerous" to talk about. Surely it's more dangerous not to talk about it? Or y'know, we could just stick our heads in the sand and hope everything works out.

If Evan created a second coin, Darkcoin would lose its credibility right away. It would make Evan appear as a altcoin P&D creator and nothing more. Not to mention if it used the same damn specs, half the market cap would be destroyed. Terrible idea. The trolls have shown up. Darkcoin as a name and brand are gaining credibility and really starting to scare some people too. (Look at the last posts in the anoncoin thread. Seriously.)

There are now many services and references on the internet that point to Darkcoin (name wise) as well. Changing it would be a disaster. It would cause most people to loose faith in the community and also confuse new investors by not knowing if the project was changed, abandoned, or replaced.

Currently as it stands, I personally believe that the name should stay as Darkcoin and no spinoff coin should be made by Evan.

+1 Why invest in a coin when we know that a clone will be created by the same dev. They become substitutes not complements.

Because want a coin that serves truly provides decentralized anonymity

That's my point, Darkcoin provides that so there's no need for a second one.

[philipmicklon]

Per our upthread technical discussion, I now realize that the traceable ring signature may be the way to prevent denial-of-service, eliminate the collateral payment and eliminate the ability of the Master node to correlate the inputs and outputs of a transaction. Thus providing absolute anonymity! Yeah!

http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/389.pdf

Perhaps something to consider for version 2?

Fascinating read. +1 on implementing this for Darkcoin version 2.

[tifozi]

Apple died until is launched a new mac with round edges and see through plastic painted a shade of pastel crap.  It was no more technically advanced. People were simply paying for brand coolness.  Apple also made the iPhone off the back of white headphones that gave people a way to link themselves to cool brand identity when they purchased an iPod.

Apple is all about making products look good and giving users a way to associate with that cool by just buying their stuff. It did use to have innovation inside too, but it really took existing ideas and made them look better and gave them better form factor.

There is no reason for a polo shirt to cost over $100 when its cost of production is less than $3. People spend the extra $93 on a logo that gives them a brand association.

Branding is everything and nothing. Get it right and you end up with everything, get it wrong and you end up with nothing.

There is no reason for Litecoin to exist. It does so because it calls itself silver to bitcoin's gold.

I'm not staked on the idea of darkcoin branding. It is important, but Darksend is the term that everyone will be using. That needs to be right.

A second coin? Who knows. But why not make it extra hard for a clone to set-up by beating them to the punch? We can have our own bitcoin / litecoin thing going on. That would make cheap headlines and extra column inches. It would need to be handled correctly to avoid diluting the existing message. But an alt-coin with a stock split kind of thing to deter potential clones? Hmm.

EDIT : Fcuk it....we can airdrop a 50% premine to existing darkcoin holders after 6 months of darksend launch and and push up the price of darkcoin in the meantime

I don't give a fuck what the coin is called. It is what it is.

Your example about Apple points out one valid thing, brands can evolve. DarkCoin isn't even a brand, it's an unproven technology still at this point. I believe it will work as outlined by Evan, but that alone won't put it over the top. It won't be the fucking logo either.

The point here is, take a moment and google Zercoin. Look at the media they've gotten. Look at the keywords you see when you read the articles. Now a month or more ago, people donated to a "marketing" fund and there should be expectations of something happening other than your typical crapcoin "bounties". All supporters of the coin should ask, has anything really been done? Those guys have gotten attention either speaking to the media

There were discussions of some very essential and basic steps that could be taken to get the coin elevated to start to be noticed outside the world of BitCoinTalk. These means media outreach, speaking at crypto events, etc.

I see no new articles, no upcoming appearances or much in the way of discussions outside of this naming and branding stuff that is nothing more than going after the lowest hanging fruit. By this point, to be honest, there should be at least a handful of articles about DarkCoin on the front page.

Whatever, aside from Evan and Anonymint, reading this thread makes me want to sell.

I support the thought process there, but maybe there is a non-attacking way to communicate it across. No one is an employee of the Darkcoin organization. Everyone should be helping with their abilities.

Darkcoin is not at the forefront when it comes to Anonymous coin discussions. I don't think pointing to a few posts here in AnonCoin thread counts. The acceptance should be across major blogs etc. I absolutely don't do well when it comes to marketing it seems. Hopefully we have some wildcards in the threads who have the outreach. There always seems to be some resistance to Darkcoin (maybe it is all in my head).

[TanteStefana]

See what happens when Evan takes a day off?  Boy are we gonna get it when he comes home!

LOL

I'm sure there won't be any name change nor another coin.  We do have to settle on a logo and brainstorm a marketing plan.  We have a lot of good choices to choose from, and I know there are awesome people here with great ideas, so lets stop hitting this nail on the head, we're denting the wood fibers and ruining the finish, eh?