Quote from: nutildah on December 15, 2024, 06:09:43 PM

Quote from: lkyinvestor on December 15, 2024, 05:29:46 PM

If it is New Lucky, then it is incorrect to use the same name, symbol, logo and story.
To say nothing of taking over old Luckycoin web domains and editing old Coinmarketcap listing. If the coin is new, then it is incorrect that domains, story, name, logo are not new and the same one with original LKY, no matter died it or dormant.

AFAIK that's what CMC goes by: what the owner of the originally-linked domain says.

I realize we are now totally off-topic, but despite whatever any shit-for-brains on Twitter has to say, I had nothing to do with the LKY relaunch. I just thought it was cool that they attempted to integrate a piece of the old blockchain, which makes it inherently a more worthy "revival" than Bells. Then I learned New Lucky was forked from New Bells, which was forked from Dogecoin. So everything is totally ass backward, and you should feel bad if you buy any of this "revival" garbage.

Buy NMC instead. Its merge-mined with BTC, it has "NFTs", and it has a continuous on-chain history since 2010. Possibly most importantly its free from the shenanigans and lies of the walking trashbags that you take investment advice from.

There I made it on-topic again.

Your point about continuous on-chain history is well taken, it's one of the major strengths of projects like Namecoin. The lack of integrity in some of these so-called 'revivals' is a huge issue, especially when they recycle branding and logos to mislead users. It's frustrating how this kind of behavior undermines trust in the broader crypto space.

That said, the idea of merge-mining with BTC is definitely one of Namecoin's key advantages, but I wonder if its practical utility has been fully realized. Aside from security, do you think there's more that could be done to emphasize Namecoin's unique features, like its role in decentralized naming systems? It feels like it deserves more attention than it's getting