Quote from: coins101 on September 02, 2014, 08:59:48 PM

Quote from: splawik21 on September 02, 2014, 08:56:21 PM

Quote from: Propulsion on September 02, 2014, 08:54:07 PM

Quote from: coins101 on September 02, 2014, 08:42:45 PM

http://cointelegraph.com/news/112415/a-glimpse-into-xcurrencys-mission-to-decentralize-everything

Roll Eyes

I don't mind that they copy me, I mind that they don't have any ideas of their own

Pretty much. Everything Darkcoin does they try to do the same. (albeit worse) They're copycats and their marketcap and trading volume reflects that. They still talk about Chaeplin actually.
(prepare for the onslaught of shills)

No, they don`t try to do the same, they only write it but never doing anything for their own, only waiting to open source of all features.

Yeah, they are waiting for DRK to open source.

Shills - fuck'em. Bring it on.

They are nothing more than a case study for patent lawyers to show prospective clients.

So someone from XC came here and confirmed that we were talking about web 3.0 on 19 Aug, and that their press release happened a few days later.

That actually is good enough to stand up in a court of IPR. There is a precedent that was set by Google - their adWords idea was actually an idea given to them by someone else, who had to take them to court and that person now enjoys a healthy share of Google stock.

This has had me thinking.

There are somethings that have to be open source, such as the code that drives the anonymity ~~lawyers~~ layers (are you allowed to use a Freudian slip on purpose?) and anything related to that. That is not in question.

However, what if xyz additional services, functions, etc were done and which people felt did not have a bearing on the integrity of anonymity. Can somethings remain closed source?

Not suggesting anything in particular, or recommending anything. Just seeking some views.

As sure as eggs is eggs, even in Cornwall, after RC5, open source, etc., I doubt work on developing Darkcoin will just stop.