He thinks there is going to be a famous MyFarm vs Dash case, that will be make into a movie and the MyFarm role is going to be played by Bradley Cooper.
But it really is not going to happen.
He can go buy the Bitcoin trademark too, after he is done buying all DSH. I must say that is a really nice gesture that he gave all DSH holders a nice exit in the name of the Darkcoin community. I do think that was nice.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10859773/Bitcoin-trademark-up-for-sale-at-580000.htmlMyFarm's clearly a serious investor and will be looking out for "number 1" (which is the usual driver of what makes most people tick....it's understandable)
So this...
I must say that is a really nice gesture that he gave all DSH holders a nice exit in the name of the Darkcoin community. I do think that was nice.
...will have an agenda and something to leverage off associated with it.
No he does not get any leverage at all, 0. Other than trying to convey a feeling of uncertainty and fear into the more inexperienced holders. It is shameful, just like the whole SPR business, and now this. He is a vulture investor, which is fine but is not really my taste.
How you can conclude there is zero leverage when there is no legal precedent in this space is fascinating to me.
It's like when the domain name wars began. There was no legal precedent as it was an emerging technology, but it sure ended up being created.
What I'd like to know is: how are the holders of a decentralized asset NOT the owners and in control who simply choose to allow the dev to do as they please as long as the community determine they're doing what is in the interest of the asset? If the majority owners of a decentralized asset don't want their decentralized asset's trademark sold, can it be sold?
Ethically, not purchasing Dashcoin was a terrible decision. What Darkcoin has done may very well be perfectly ok from a legal standpoint. However, as there is zero legal precedent for decentralized assets, what I'm saying is the deep-pocketed company Darkcoin is picking a fight with may choose not to walk away from their trademark registration without a serious fight. And that serious fight may result in legal precedent being set. I'd be dumb not to buy a boatload of the underlying asset the fight is over just in case the legal precedent would be in my favor.
But there is legal precedent. I don't know if it was new information to you and you are still processing, but the Bitcoin trademark is owned by MtGox, not any of the Bitcoin holders. It has been reviewed by high profile lawyers and they still concluded MtGox can sell the trademark without asking any of the BTC holders. When you get coins you get property, not any voting rights as you said so yourself.
Instead of constantly trying to take advantage of vulnerable situations. Would it hurt to use all this experience and capital to actually help in a positive way for once?