wozzek, I acknowledge your sentiments and am sure many are feeling the same way.

But I urge you to look at it in another context for a moment. "Letting your beliefs blind you" - for me - amounts to believing for one moment that the name "Dark" makes a blind bit of difference to 'changing the world'.

As you've already pointed out, the world "out there" is a lot darker than this project will ever be. Although it might give a few youthful crusaders a ripple up their spine, in practice it's about as threatening as a box of chocolates. Personally, I don't give a jip about the name - they can call it whatever they like for what I care as long as it does the job of identifying the project and the currency.

I agree about Vertoe - it's a damn shame to loose someone like that, but at the same time I'm disappointed that they couldn't be bigger minded about it. It's maybe worth having a word with Evan about but definitely not ditching the project over.

There are plenty of precedents to see how each option would have played out. The "dead coins" list is full of great symbology - from nations to atoms - that never lived up to their name because of lack of realism.

Then there's Dark Wallet. That was supposed to "change the world" and now it's gradually being seen for what it is - a couple of nerdy anarchists (no offence to nerdy anarchists - I am one   ) in their house trying to type out their idea of a free world. But it means nothing to anyone else - latest "funding round" amounts ot the grand total of 2 BTC.

Names are important. But if they start to become toxic then they need to be ditched and I for one am thankful we've got a dev who isn't too myopic to do it.

If people really think they're compromising something precious with the name "Darkcoin" then I just think they haven't seen enough of the world yet.