Quote from: midnightmagic on July 27, 2014, 09:18:33 PM

As far as I can tell, you do not have permission to use the term "namecoin" from anyone involved in the old namecoin project, nor the new embryonic effort.

Pick another name. Don't be a douche.

Also, "ICANNDY" is a terrible, terrible name with dark connotations.

Using the term "namecoin 2.O" is to indicate an improved version of what Namecoin did. No need to get all emotional, we respect the Namecoin team.

Quote from: defaced on July 27, 2014, 10:07:13 PM

Quote from: Tomatocage on July 24, 2014, 10:06:32 PM

Bitcoin never had an IPO. Neither did the original Namecoin, nor did Litecoin. Why is it that all of a sudden all these new chains now require IPOs?

I've been wondering the same thing...

We have an IPO, because it will give us the time to develop the product in a proper manner. Companies constantly receive funding in Silicon Valley, maybe you guys should read more about investing and VCs.

BTW I don't understand the argument that Bitcoin never had an IPO, so other shoulden't. Imagine Satoshi having an IPO, he/she/they would have been killed/jailed or simply laughed at. His/Her/Their way of bringing the product Bitcoin to the market doesn't mean that it's LAW. Nothing is LAW or should be done exactly like the first person/persons who did it. The field of cryptocurrency is all about EXPERIMENTING that means trying new things, with another mindset. We are a startup that want to disrupt the DNS space, to do so you need funding. It's not only about making the product, we got to make infovids, do some serious marketing, do some extra security checks from parties outside the development team.