Rebranding and Scalability

I am a big fan and defender of Darkcoin
but we are really coming to the edge with the brand,
we had direct comments on branding 'issue' with exchanges/merchants/ clients/....
we approached !
you can ignore that for a while, but at some point (i believe what we have now)
we have to grow up and take it to the next level.

rebrand and take on crypto 2.0
(in branding and message)
as we have the tech already we just have to sell it !

PS: i will NOT buy a suite
 
year 2020

- Hello
- Oh hi there!!
- I'd like to buy 1kg of potatoes
- Sure
- Can I pay with Darkcoins?
- dark what-now ???? You did say potatoes right?

I do see this as the fundamental issue here.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
moli said:
If we change the name to "Dash", we might as well change "Darksend" to "Dashsend" too? :)

eduffield ?
Click to expand...

I don't think the term "Darksend" is even needed. You can anonymize coins, you can either do a public transaction by sending standard coins, or a private transaction by sending anonymous coins. There's no "Darksend" needed to confuse the user.
 
I think Dash is a great name. For those attached to the Darkcoin name, don't forget we can still call a single coin a Darkcoin. Just like a dollar can be called a buck. I don't think we should completely forgo our journey up till now (but keep the Darkcoin name hidden).

We do need to realize that we are about to enter phase 2, and in this phase we need to be able to sell Darkcoin to merchants. The name is currently a strong barrier. D(igitalC)ash has a much stronger ring to it for someone hearing it for the first time.

There is one more thing we really need to work on, which are light wallets for average users (like blockchain for bitcoin). I don't think the coin can succeed until we have a good story for users on how to make fast easy payments. I personally think the rebrand should go together with this.

Also has there been any thought of incorporating electrum servers directly into the masternodes, is this even possible, or is it a security risk?
 
illodin said:
I don't think the term "Darksend" is even needed. You can anonymize coins, you can either do a public transaction by sending standard coins, or a private transaction by sending anonymous coins. There's no "Darksend" needed to confuse the user.
Click to expand...
"Darksend" currently is a brand. I don't see any confusion with it.
 
I have been following Gavin Andresens work a little recently, and am thinking he is not solving the problem of blockchain bloat by increasing the size, its kind of counter intuitive, one should be stream lining rather than super sizing, and as the wallet update speeds do not agree with larger blockchain sizes even if they are compressed-it seems like a bodge solution that will only get worse over time. To form a solution to the 7 transactions a second paradigm requires a new angle and approach. For bitcoin, older computers with HDD already max out the cpu at 100% and this solution will only make things worse.

And even if Pieter's libsecp256k1 library is instigated to reduce cpu usage,traditional HDD's will still be stretched to a maximum, in fact the situation may not change because the cpu will be left hanging waiting for the HDD data to come in due to latency times and transfer speeds(still on a IDE port anyone?!). I suspect low connection speeds of the 3rd world have not been factored into at all, in fact quite the opposite-it appears Mr Andresen is relying on Moores law to sort it all out.

P.S. There is power in the name, and catchy though it is, the name 'dash' is already taken by another anonymous coin. I do not agree with ditching the name as such, but rather building a second name on top much like the 2 tier system of the masternodes, something like InstantX (IX for short) powered by a 'darkcore engine' perhaps. When I say, 'did you get that IX transaction' it has a kind of ring to it, does it not ?
 
QuantumExplorer said:
I think Dash is a great name. For those attached to the Darkcoin name, don't forget we can still call a single coin a Darkcoin. Just like a dollar can be called a buck. I don't think we should completely forgo our journey up till now (but keep the Darkcoin name hidden).

We do need to realize that we are about to enter phase 2, and in this phase we need to be able to sell Darkcoin to merchants. The name is currently a strong barrier. D(igitalC)ash has a much stronger ring to it for someone hearing it for the first time.

There is one more thing we really need to work on, which are light wallets for average users (like blockchain for bitcoin). I don't think the coin can succeed until we have a good story for users on how to make fast easy payments. I personally think the rebrand should go together with this.

Also has there been any thought of incorporating electrum servers directly into the masternodes, is this even possible, or is it a security risk?
Click to expand...
You can follow the "Electrum DRK" project here: https://darkcointalk.org/threads/electrum-dark.3845/page-14
 
I'll be sad to see the name change but agree that it's a necessary evil. This time could we get some real marketing firms input on this or at least 5th year marketing students? If were going to rebrand lets do it right, I'm sure there are many exceptional students out there that would do this at a reasonable price.

While Dash is alright it isn't great. I think we can do better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
moli said:
"Darksend" currently is a brand. I don't see any confusion with it.
Click to expand...

Hi moli, I think Darksend needs to go too. There is no point in changing Darkcoin if then you are going to Darksend your coins. I guess this is up for debate, but I am on the no need for a brand camp. Whatever brand we use you have your public balance and your private balance, just my opinion.
 
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Thank goodness!

I have been SOOOOOOOO troubled by the name Darkcoin it's almost had me pulling the pin on any further involvement.

Down here in Australia there is very little understanding of the need for anonymity and things like Silk Road and dark markets are just seen as absolutely criminal on every level and totally nefarious. Whilst I think the name Darkcoin has been hugely helpful in enabling Darkcoin to carve out a place in the crypto world, like Oblox mentioned in a previous posting, outside of that very limited realm it is a marketing nightmare.

There's only one person here in Australia I've spoken to who comprehends and understands what Darkcoin is and that is Ignition75 down in Melbourne! Every other single person I've spoken to about it immediately responds with "that sounds pretty dodgy" or "is that for buying drugs?" or "why would you want to be involved in THAT?!"

Basically, my experience with introducing people to Darkcoin involves them immediately assuming Darkcoin must = technology for nefarious, highly illegal and bad for society online activity.

So, without a name change I simply can't be involved. It's just hopeless and virtually impossible.

I think DASH is a perfectly good name and I can see it being easily adopted. But I do think some marketing expertise should be brought into the discussion. There have been examples in the past of companies re-branding and it being a total failure because they've failed to comprehend fundamental problems with the name that no one thought of at the time.

And I think the retirement of the Darkcoin name needs to be very carefully handled too. How can this be effected without some other developer deciding they're now going to use the Darkcoin name, and frankly, all the Darkcoin code and continue Darkcoin on as is! Given it's open source I don't know how we could even stop this. This could create mass confusion as "Darkcoin" picked up by another developer using existing Darkcoin (that's become DASH) code is effectively Darkcoin prior to the name change. And there's nothing to stop them from just updating their "Darkcoin" with latest DASH code so effectively having two competing cryptos out there that are exactly the same except only one is this community and this development team (can you see how messy this will get!). Who (without being part of this community and knowing about this history) can then know that they're no longer dealing with this community and Evan's development? Do we need to just halt Darkcoin at this point, but not disband anything, then all new code is released under the new name so that effectively Darkcoin still exists (and is still "owned" by Evan - as much as open source can be "owned") but the new DASH version of it is where all the new development is focussed? I'd be interested to hear what others think on this aspect of the name change.
 
RenegadeMan said:
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
And I think the retirement of the Darkcoin name needs to be very carefully handled too. How can this be effected without some other developer deciding they're now going to use the Darkcoin name, and frankly, all the Darkcoin code and continue Darkcoin on as is! Given it's open source I don't know how we could even stop this. This could create mass confusion as "Darkcoin" picked up by another developer using existing Darkcoin (that's become DASH) code is effectively Darkcoin prior to the name change. And there's nothing to stop then from just updating their "Darkcoin" with latest DASH code so effectively having two competing cryptos out there that are exactly the same except only one is this community and this development team (can you see how messy this will get!). Who (without being part of this community and knowing about this history) can then know that they're no longer dealing with this community and Evan's development? Do we need to just halt Darkcoin at this point, but not disband anything, then all new code is released under the new name so that effectively Darkcoin still exists (and is still "owned" by Evan - as much as open source can be "owned") but the new DASH version of it is where all the new development is focussed? I'd be interested to hear what others think on this aspect of the name change.
Click to expand...

I think it will be hard for any other coin to get the current masternode network. Most people who invest in a masternode would quickly realize that the other coin is a scam.
 
RenegadeMan said:
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!



...Snip....

And I think the retirement of the Darkcoin name needs to be very carefully handled too. How can this be effected without some other developer deciding they're now going to use the Darkcoin name, and frankly, all the Darkcoin code and continue Darkcoin on as is! Given it's open source I don't know how we could even stop this. This could create mass confusion as "Darkcoin" picked up by another developer using existing Darkcoin (that's become DASH) code is effectively Darkcoin prior to the name change. And there's nothing to stop them from just updating their "Darkcoin" with latest DASH code so effectively having two competing cryptos out there that are exactly the same except only one is this community and this development team (can you see how messy this will get!). Who (without being part of this community and knowing about this history) can then know that they're no longer dealing with this community and Evan's development? Do we need to just halt Darkcoin at this point, but not disband anything, then all new code is released under the new name so that effectively Darkcoin still exists (and is still "owned" by Evan - as much as open source can be "owned") but the new DASH version of it is where all the new development is focussed? I'd be interested to hear what others think on this aspect of the name change.
Click to expand...

I think all we need to do is register the Darkcoin brand as a trademark before we move on. Maybe this was done already, I am not sure. We have prior art, so it should be quite easy to do. The foundation lawyers will have to look into this if they didn't already.
 
QuantumExplorer said:
I think it will be hard for any other coin to get the current masternode network. Most people who invest in a masternode would quickly realize that the other coin is a scam.
Click to expand...

The Masternode Network is a huge deterrent for copycats. Good point.
 
Sub-Ether said:
With respect, you can't use dash, these guys already use it for an anon coin to boot, it will confuse and they will not like it at all.
http://dashcoin.net/
Click to expand...

I responded to this question in the BCT thread, that coin and the rights to the name Dashcoin were acquired by the foundation prior to this announcement. So from that perspective we have the rights and even prior art. No "coin" suffix is being proposed though, Evan is considering calling the platform Dash - digital cash.
 
moli said:
I love the name "Darkcoin" too and it doesn't bother me, but we've had this discussion before on another thread, and there're still people bringing up this topic so I guess we just have to trust Evan and the Foundation in making this decision. :)
Click to expand...
Physicists love the name dark, they have dark matter and dark energy, instead call it something IX transfers powered by a darkcoin-core engine but please don't ditch the name altogether, it is important and part of the identity and strength. Create a second name layer on top, this is stronger, then you stagger both worlds, after all this is how the masternode system works, a 2 name system for a 2 tier network.
 
Minotaur said:
Hi moli, I think Darksend needs to go too. There is no point in changing Darkcoin if then you are going to Darksend your coins. I guess this is up for debate, but I am on the no need for a brand camp. Whatever brand we use you have your public balance and your private balance, just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Sure. That was why I said maybe we'd have to change it to "Dashsend" if we change the brand to "Dash".
Currently, "Darksend" is more like a sub-brand, for lack of terminology if you will, when we say "Darksend your drk...", people who understand how DS works understand what it means. It contains your next how many words you don't have to use to explain.
 
Sub-Ether said:
Physicists love the name dark, they have dark matter and dark energy, instead call it something IX transfers powered by a darkcoin-core engine but please don't ditch the name altogether, it is important and part of the identity and strength. Create a second name layer on top, this is stronger, then you stagger both worlds, after all this is how the masternode system works, a 2 name system for a 2 tier network.
Click to expand...
I love the name "dark" too. Still don't understand dark matter but to me "dark" has nothing wrong with it. :)
I think "Darkcoin" somehow has some energy drawn to it. But sure, for the commoners and the sake of mass adoption, i can see we have to face something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top