Here's the thing: I accept the fact that the Darkcoin name is not changing, and I stated as such to make people very clear that this has been decided.
All I'm doing is recognising that there is a significant segment of the market that will be wary of the current brand, which we might be able to reach, and brainstorming how we might reach it. If people genuinely believe that us launching a differently branded sister-coin might kill Darkcoin, then the implication that this is exactly what will happen when others inevitably do exactly what I'm suggesting we do. I'm very surprised that people think this is somehow "dangerous" to talk about. Surely it's more dangerous not to talk about it? Or y'know, we could just stick our heads in the sand and hope everything works out.
A sister coin would wipe out Darkcoin, especially if we did it. So it's not a good idea.
Other options are:
1.) Renaming the coin. It keeps coming up over and over, maybe we should really consider it. Everyone start coming up with names and I'll make a voting page to gauge if our user base even wants this.
2.) The first 24 hours of the coins existence keep causing us problems, an "airdrop" could be a solution to this. We could airdrop all holders (uniquely verified) with a equal portion of coin. This coin would come from a block in the future that paid 2.4million+ coins to a specific address that I hold. We could use some kind of verification system like mastercoin (
http://mastercoin-faucet.com/github-intro)
The airdrop would be a month or so into the future, so it would give users time to buy coins and become holders creating some demand. Also, we'd have a much larger market cap and the argument about the first 24 hours would become invalid.
As always, we listen to the community. If enough people complain, we'll do something...