Yes, that's it. I can't see this going anywhere except for creating more confusion.
We are here to keep the DarkCoin dream alive. A dream focused on the original intent of DarkCoin:
to provide privacy and security to cryptocurrency transaction.
(Sorry to preach to the choir!)We are only changing the name, no technology is affected by this. The coin, the blockchain and the people will be the same. Users don’t need to act on this, the next update of the wallet will have the new brand and it will be a standard update.
Our ideals remain intact and we will continue to pursue them under any branding we have, now and in the future.
The foundation started the process to trademark Darkcoin a few weeks ago to avoid this kind of things. It will take some time, but there should not be any problem. In the meantime, we have asked the lawyer to work on the defence of the brand. He will be contacting exchanges and other services if they list this coin. They are not gonna have an easy time. However, enforcement in crypto is not easy, so it is not going to be immediate.
We are not trademarking Dashcoin, we bought that brand to contest another trademarking attempt, not to close that option. Dashcoin as a project already exists. You may agree with them or not, but they are not fraudsters, so no need to protect from their use of the name.Apparently the "dev" doesn't have the attention span to read even a single page. Right in the OP he says:
Yet he links to our re-branding page which says (emphasis mine):
(Sorry to preach to the choir!)
Just to add to this, are we going to trademark Dashcoin as well just to protect the brand from fraudsters like these?
You may agree with them or not, but they are not fraudsters, so no need to protect from their use of the name.
I know, but I wanted to make it clear that nobody is attacking the Dashcoin project.I'm sure the dashcoin devs aren't fraudsters. Just to clarify I was referring to the "new" Darkcoin devs.
How do you figure they are using the same blockchain as Dash... this is Fudcoin rebranded last I checked which is a sha256 coin with its own existing blockchain. Further, securing the name as a trademark could mean the foundation could target the exchanges with a C&D order. Without exchanges, the marketplace dries up quickly if you can't buy or sell.Looks to me that they are just maintaining a "darkcoin" wallet using the same blockchain as dash.
Evan should have sporked the brand change and waited for consensus like he does with other stuff.
The foundation trying to lawyer their darkcoin project into nonexistance is wack, wont work, and will only make it stronger.
The dark black theme will inevitably be more popular than the blue dash, might as well accept it.
They have the right idea.
I was just going off the big text saying "this is a rebrand not a relaunch". Maybe youre, right I didnt look close.How do you figure they are using the same blockchain as Dash... this is Fudcoin rebranded last I checked which is a sha256 coin with its own existing blockchain. Further, securing the name as a trademark could mean the foundation could target the exchanges with a C&D order. Without exchanges, the marketplace dries up quickly if you can't buy or sell.
The foundation started the process to trademark Darkcoin a few weeks ago to avoid this kind of things. It will take some time, but there should not be any problem. In the meantime, we have asked the lawyer to work on the defence of the brand. He will be contacting exchanges and other services if they list this coin. They are not gonna have an easy time. However, enforcement in crypto is not easy, so it is not going to be immediate.
I was just going off the big text saying "this is a rebrand not a relaunch". Maybe youre, right I didnt look close.
But If the darkcoin foundation attacks another coin, i wont support them anymore. Especially over this, They abondoned their name...so abandon it. Or compete and win. C&D orders??? I hope that fails, just on principal.
Well Dash isnt a company, so your question is moot.Excellent. That's exactly what I was hoping to hear. I'd hate to see somebody, especially a fraud like that piggyback of the coattails of a legitimate crypto.
Are you saying companies do not deserve to retain the brands they started?
Looks like a lot of companies need to hire you so you can tell them that.
Just let the inevitable happen, Theyre goin to use the name and the black theme and theyre going to run with it.
It's a no brainer! go ahead and spend foundation time and resources fighting it.
But If the darkcoin foundation attacks another coin, i wont support them anymore.
I'm not entirely sure you can say it was a "knee-jerk half-assed brand change" as it was happening behind the scenes for months. Maybe half-assed in the sense that Evan's slip with the github repo resulted in it spilling early but it is what it is. If the foundation secures the brand then they have every right to enforce that brand in whatever jurisdictions they legally have rights in. It's not rocket science for the exchanges to risk litigation over hosting a marketplace with a coin that infringes a trademark. They wouldn't be "attacking" a coin that is trying to benefit from using a recognized name in crypto.I was just going off the big text saying "this is a rebrand not a relaunch". Maybe youre, right I didnt look close.
But If the darkcoin foundation attacks another coin, i wont support them anymore. Especially over this, They abondoned their name...so abandon it. Or compete and win. C&D orders??? I hope that fails, just on principal.
This was literally day one obvious repucussions of a knee-jerk half assed brand change if you ask me. OF COURSE this was going to happen. Evan never respected design much, not like his code which he's super carefull not to fork. Well, he made a god-mode decision and now we have design forks.
I think its a good lesson.
I know, but I wanted to make it clear that nobody is attacking the Dashcoin project.