There is nothing wrong with highlighting other possible uses. Or pushing privacy as a neutral agenda. It helps keep the perception of the coin from being polarised into good/bad. It helps keep the perception of the coin neutral as ecash should be.
As far as future uses go, maybe i'm not explaining it right or you're not getting it. But if we can agree to accept the premise i outlined earlier that as BTC gets more regulated and mainstream, there will be opportunities for another coin or coins to emerge to fill some "gaps" in how BTC either was or is still being used for... this emerges from the greater attention and scruitny. Agree?
So if we agree on that, I think we also fundamentally agree on some of the issues with BTC that exist now (privacy) and as it grows acceptance (more privacy issues!) become more important to the people who use a digital currency for whatever reason.
From there, we need to be honest about what opportunities exist. It -IS- the Silk Road 3 stuff, people who want to be paid off the books, companies that want to hide something, for whatever reason, etc.. This type of stuff IS the low hanging fruit that can create more demand for DRK as a privacy-centric coin that ISNT BTC.
I think you are too hung up on this "good/bad" perception and if we were to act on that as a marketing effort, I think it ultimately hurts the coin.
If you try to figure out how to control "perception", I think you inevitably end up in a place where you start saying how DRK isn't just used for drugs or whatever... the more you go down that road, the more you will ultimately end up alienating the people who want to use DRK for buying some weed or whatever. If you do that, you pretty much would guarantee DRK not to have much success.
Anonymous transactions/privacy are the thing here. DRK needs to be (and marketed) as transaction neutral and not venture into the world of saying "we don't really advocate this, this or this".
Oh we agree on 90% I just took offence at being "organised" to start with
My point is I watched kristovs video and him talking about the price of dark market bullets will put a lot of people off.
If I'd seen that first I'm not sure I'd have wanted to get involved.
And I honestly think some balanced neutral advertising wouldn't hurt.
Why wait for someone to write about DRK wrongly in articles when we get it out in our own words?
It's not denying that people won't use dark for dark markets. It's setting a focus and opening peoples eyes to lack of privacy bitcoin offers.