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.