Quote from: tidesoaked on March 30, 2015, 03:52:59 PM

Quote from: qvan on March 30, 2015, 03:48:20 PM

Quote from: tidesoaked on March 30, 2015, 03:38:23 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on March 30, 2015, 03:31:22 PM

Quote from: tidesoaked on March 30, 2015, 03:24:26 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on March 30, 2015, 03:12:01 PM

Quote from: majamina on March 30, 2015, 01:15:46 PM

Also, how much do you really know about Evan & the DASH foundation's mysterious funding sources, insider trading, brand theft, investment fraud, etc. Not a lot I'd wager.

We don't know much about THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. and its mysterious funding sources, insider trading, brand theft, investment fraud, etc. But what we do no does not look good.

That fishy lack of transparency is one of the reasons stated by vertoe for his quitting the project.

What brand theft? I believe Dashcoin(which is clearly not branded DASH) was negotiated with and OK'ed the Dash brand name?

Besides, these crypto"currencies" are really not copyrighting anything, they just copy opensource code and replace the name of it.

The Dashcoin community was not consulted nor bought out properly.

TDFI (THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.) intends to trademark the term 'DASH' and is using Dashcoin and Dashcoiners as pawns in its legal gamesmanship.

TDFI is all about branding and marketing, not tech. They copy BTC innovations, rename them, and pretend Duffman invented them.

That's how Green Addresses are magically now called InstantX, and so on. It's all been documented.

Well, to me it seems like "The Dashcoin community" would have to copyright the trademark both Dash and Dashcoin in that case. I don't believe they did, and if they did they could practically sue Dash I suppose.

We have to remember that this is all community driven, and what's the problem if one coin is called Dash and another is called Dashcoin? It's like Bitcoin would have the right to sue any other coin that is named Bit[whatever]? I really don't see the problem here.

When it comes to open source there are very few rules. The Linux foundation doesn't sue Linux Mint, for example.

here's the catch, DASH is a coin like any other coin example: dashcoin....but if you ask them they will say we are not a coin lol

confusion in the is what they brought upon crypto currency market and why not just rename to DASH without buying dashcoin github and paying dashcoin dev to leave the project? Evan said "this project will not continue". it is an indirect way of killing a coin telling the community in a way to dump and leave.

Yes, to me that seems a bit unnecessary tbh. But I suppose people could continue the Dashcoin-project regardless if it has been abandoned by the original developer. The original developer shouldn't have sold out an open source project, in fact, I don't believe that's really possible as long as the code is open source.

it is very unlikely that the dev will to go to evan to sell, i think it was evan who made an offer..they know it is open source so maybe they tried to kill it with evan and darkcoin FUD..no matter how small dashcoin is, they underestimated the power of decentralization so dashcoin is till alive, small and without a dev for now.