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

[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.

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.

I'm not sure why people keep talking about changing the name. It's not happening.

You make a reasonable argument why it may not be a good idea to create a differently-branded sister coin. However, it remains to be fully discussed whether there is a significant market that may be reached by a more public-friendly branding, and also whether there is a significant threat of Darkcoin being usurped by a "light"-branded clone when it goes open source (and what might be done to mitigate such a threat).

It's apparent that people feel very strongly about the whole topic of branding & reaching potential markets. There is also a lot of fear that this discussion is evidently bringing to the surface. In which case, I strongly urge you all not to censor the topic simply because it brings up bad feelings.

[darkproton]

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.

I'm not sure why people keep talking about changing the name. It's not happening.

You make a reasonable argument why it may not be a good idea to create a differently-branded sister coin. However, it remains to be fully discussed whether there is a significant market that may be reached by a more public-friendly branding, and also whether there is a significant threat of Darkcoin being usurped by a "light"-branded clone when it goes open source.

It's apparent that people feel very strongly about the whole topic of branding & reaching potential markets. There is also a lot of fear that this discussion is evidently bringing to the surface. In which case, I strongly urge you all not to censor the topic simply because it brings up bad feelings.

Well, I will say this. If there is a sister coin I will dump all of my darkcoin. Not that it matters of course. I really like the fact that there is a dedicated dev on darkcoin who is super talented. Two coins? ugh. Count me out. Let all the innovation be put forth into one coin without the hassle of upkeeping two. Who cares about the name. You guys really think the name is holding the coin back? It's that it's still in beta. Darksend hasn't been implemented. When it has and we hear people saying,"dark coin is cool...but that name. Err....think I'll go with goldcoin instead", I will kill myself.

[eduffield]

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.

3.) I completely agree and I have plans for doing this with most of my time after DarkSend is completed. I'll detail this more tomorrow.

[eduffield]

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.

I'm not opposed to that, maybe we should vote on it?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=559879.0

[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.

I'm not sure why people keep talking about changing the name. It's not happening.

You make a reasonable argument why it may not be a good idea to create a differently-branded sister coin. However, it remains to be fully discussed whether there is a significant market that may be reached by a more public-friendly branding, and also whether there is a significant threat of Darkcoin being usurped by a "light"-branded clone when it goes open source.

It's apparent that people feel very strongly about the whole topic of branding & reaching potential markets. There is also a lot of fear that this discussion is evidently bringing to the surface. In which case, I strongly urge you all not to censor the topic simply because it brings up bad feelings.

A sister-coin will destroy Darkcoin. Why ? Because if it reach a larger public like you think, has the exact same properties, and is made by the same dev, the former coin has no reason to exist and will not attract investments. Conversely, a clone will never have the primacy nor the productive dev behind Darkcoin. So you see from where the real threat come from.

[eduffield]

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.

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...

[eduffield]

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?

Wow, perhaps. I'll check this out.

[jiosefjd]

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.

Obviously, DarkSend must work. Everyone posting on this thread and invested in this coin is operating on that premise. Without DarkSend, this is just another coin.

However, the branding will probably prove important to at least some degree, unless DarkSend is completely unmatched in terms of its transactional anonymity (and probably even then). I think I am safe in assuming that no one has bothered with a crypto-media blitz because the main component of the technology is still in beta. Building hype (which is all it would be until DarkSend is ready) is useful, but difficult and time-consuming. Once the technology is ready, the process becomes much easier.

In terms of branding, the name is inherently a problem. If unaddressed it will, at best, not be a positive aspect of the enterprise; at worst, it might hamper wider adoption of the coin. We know that Dark is supposed to refer to privacy, but that is hierarchically lower on the semiotic chain than, say, 'evil' or 'illicit.' Thus, the logo must do the work of directing the uninformed user to the correct connotation.

In that respect, picking the black/white logo, #6, would be a mistake. It presents no useful information whatsoever, and is not unique in its choice of font. I would prefer a logo like #7 or #8, although I admit that I am disappointed by the execution, and probably will ultimately vote for #3.

[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.

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...

Given that there are a lot of people here invested in Darkcoin & a lot riding on the outcome of our branding & marketing efforts, what about putting these questions to a professional branding & marketing consultant? I don't know if a poll of the userbase will give us an adequate answer to this one. I think we're all varying levels of amateur here when it comes to this stuff -- I'd be far more comfortable trusting an expert than an opinion poll. Thoughts?

[LimLims]

Also: it seems we have another candidate design, created by Enzwell:

[ErrorId]

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.

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...

Given that there are a lot of people here invested in Darkcoin & a lot riding on the outcome of our branding & marketing efforts, what about putting these questions to a professional branding & marketing consultant? I don't know if a poll of the userbase will give us an adequate answer to this one. I think we're all varying levels of amateur here when it comes to this stuff -- I'd be far more comfortable trusting an expert than an opinion poll. Thoughts?

I agree, problem is we would need to raise some serious coin to do this.

Also, Evan, thank you for considering this.

[eltito]

Given that there are a lot of people here invested in Darkcoin & a lot riding on the outcome of our branding & marketing efforts, what about putting these questions to a professional branding & marketing consultant? I don't know if a poll of the userbase will give us an adequate answer to this one. I think we're all varying levels of amateur here when it comes to this stuff -- I'd be far more comfortable trusting an expert than an opinion poll. Thoughts?

Absolutely.  I'd pony up a hundred or two DRK.  Would you be doing the leg work to track down a consultant?

[LimLims]

I agree, problem is we would need to raise some serious coin to do this.

Also, Evan, thank you for considering this.

Well, we still have 1773 DRK in the coffers from unclaimed bounties. I guess if we were to hire an expert to consult on the specific questions we're trying to answer, and perhaps on some high level strategic direction with branding & marketing, that would be a lot cheaper than hiring someone to do all the legwork. But I don't know how much either would cost, tbh.

[ErrorId]

I agree, problem is we would need to raise some serious coin to do this.

Also, Evan, thank you for considering this.

Well, we still have 1773 DRK in the coffers from unclaimed bounties. I guess if we were to hire an expert to consult on the specific questions we're trying to answer, and perhaps on some high level strategic direction with branding & marketing, that would be a lot cheaper than hiring someone to do all the legwork. But I don't know how much either would cost, tbh.

I know someone who works in the field, I'll try to get a you a ballpark estimate tomorrow.

[LimLims]

Given that there are a lot of people here invested in Darkcoin & a lot riding on the outcome of our branding & marketing efforts, what about putting these questions to a professional branding & marketing consultant? I don't know if a poll of the userbase will give us an adequate answer to this one. I think we're all varying levels of amateur here when it comes to this stuff -- I'd be far more comfortable trusting an expert than an opinion poll. Thoughts?

Absolutely.  I'd pony up a hundred or two DRK.  Would you be doing the leg work?

Honestly i'm thinking of stepping back from my current role after the logo comp is finished. It's a pretty thankless task, lots of work, lots of criticism, and you don't get paid. And I've gotta say, my dislike of marketing hasn't changed. (I'll refrain from reposting my favourite Bill Hicks rant on the matter).

[eduffield]

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.

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...

Given that there are a lot of people here invested in Darkcoin & a lot riding on the outcome of our branding & marketing efforts, what about putting these questions to a professional branding & marketing consultant? I don't know if a poll of the userbase will give us an adequate answer to this one. I think we're all varying levels of amateur here when it comes to this stuff -- I'd be far more comfortable trusting an expert than an opinion poll. Thoughts?

I would like to see a vote first to see how many people like the name:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=559912.0

However, I like your idea of doing this in a completely professional way. We would be the first coin with a marketing company backing us, that's neat.

[InternetApe]

 I think the problem with darkcoin name, and I really like it, is that people are putting it in the same context as Darkweb and illegal activity.

The only reason we would even consider it would be to make it easier to market to the masses, we dont want it to be a darkweb coin. Techies really wouldnt care about the name but the general public might.

Again I like the name but MAYBE it would be better accepted with a friendlier name??

[Lebubar]

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.

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...

2- really nice idea, I was also thinking that this first day should cause a lot of reticense to new investments..

[eduffield]

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.

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...

2- really nice idea, I was also thinking that this first day should cause a lot of reticense to new investments..

Let's vote on the airdrop, I'm interested to see what people think:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=559932.0

[Simcom]

A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.

Other options are:

1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.


As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...

1) The name is fine - "the general public" is never going to use darkcoin, it will be used by people who care about ANONYMITY - The general public will just stick with bitcoin, because it is "anonymous enough" for 95% of folks, and has tons of other advantages (wide retail acceptance etc)
2) The first 24 hours became a larger problem when the # of coins decreased from 84million to 22million, In retrospect this was probably a mistake... but we can't take that back now without killing the price and shaking investor confidence. The airdrop idea sounds super shady, even if it isn't.

Major changes like this should not be taken lightly.  Investors want specs that are written in stone. Major changes should ONLY happen if it's crucial for the success of the coin.  Neither of these issues meet that requirement and therefore I think should be left as-is.