Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on April 07, 2014, 12:29:43 AM

Quote from: eltito on April 07, 2014, 12:16:11 AM

Quote from: LimLims on April 07, 2014, 12:05:30 AM

Quote from: coins101 on April 06, 2014, 08:19:10 PM

Quote from: LimLims on April 06, 2014, 07:55:21 PM

Quote from: Kai Proctor on April 06, 2014, 07:40:32 PM

The young or cool look doesn't seem to bother anyone for other currencies (e.g. Doge).

Other currencies don't have the unique marketing challenge that we face -- that is, overcoming the stigma of being the "Dark" coin, and all the connotations that arise from this in the mind of readers.

I suspect the reason this issue isn't being taken as seriously as is warranted is because the effects aren't immediately or directly felt, and because the "dark" connotations don't bother us personally. If a clone with better branding overtakes us in market share, it will become clear in retrospect that a large proportion of the market was holding back from investing in darkcoin specifically because of our branding. Except by then it will be too late. If you read up on what people think about darkcoin outside of here, you'll see a lot higher frequency of the opinion that the name & branding will prevent us from ever gaining a significant market share. If people are thinking this way, then you can bet that it's influencing where they invest.

In that case, we should launch a clone and keep the development tied.

Its no different to VW using the same components for Skoda or Bentley. Sokda makes a profit because it attracts a value proposition, but its engineering is based on out of date VW designs. That way VW is premium, and Skoda can remain affordable.

Lead with Darkcoin, recycle new releases every 3 months later into something else.

The more I think about it, the more this idea makes sense. If Darkcoin will be a niche product because of branding, why not fill the other niche ourselves before others do, with a "light"-branded sister coin?

New publicity-friendly name, fair launch, focus on privacy. Let Darkcoin be the testbed and bring across any changes when it's stable. We're in a unique position to capture the subset of the market that are choosing not to invest in Darkcoin because of its branding, because we can implement darksend before it's open source (that is, if Evan gives the ok). I don't see that there's much to lose with this strategy. We can be sure that others will do exactly this once Darkcoin goes open source, so why not capture that market now, in a way that lets existing Darkcoin investors get in early and mitigate their risks?

If the sole hangup is branding, doing this would 100% destroy Darkcoin. There is zero reason to hold DRK if there is a better branded, identical alternative (from the same dev, no less).

Even talking about this openly on this thread is dangerous. More so given your semi-official affiliation with the dev team.

thats a terrible idea, you will end killing off darkcoin, because your more or less saying, without words i might add, that one coin is for "evil" purposes, while the other is for "good" purposes...

Why not just re-brand Darkcoin?