Quote from: eahmadov on November 06, 2014, 07:51:41 PM

Quote from: solid12345 on November 06, 2014, 07:47:02 PM

Quote from: eahmadov on November 06, 2014, 07:37:00 PM

Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan.

No offense but this is not a "bail out" to SDC, otherwise there are plenty of Anoncoins that Dark could buy out for no good reason. What this is is a last minute attempt to gain control of Shadowcoin's main selling point, ZK Snarks which offers true trustless, zero knowledge anonymity. It's not about HTML wallets or fancy GUI graphics, those can be bought rather easily.

I admit as an SDC investor it would be nice to have the Dark name recognition behind the coin but I also don't like the idea of my chunk of investment in SDC being worth 31x less. Valuating SDC's proportion based on market cap is folly because when ZK is released it is going to set the crypto world on fire and put SDC at the very least on equal footing with Dark market-cap wise.

Here is a simple answer: I never heard about ShadowCoin before. a) If your ShadowCoin is really great and has value then why are you agreeing to destroying it? Just continue to work on it. b) If it is doomed to fail then why would it be saved at the expense of Darkcoin investors?

Please, let's be respectful with each other. We all love our coins. Our devs have been talking and they all recognize the value of the other coin. This is no bailing out. There is no way to know what would happen in the future, both for ShadowCash or for Darkcoin. The market is difficult and that is why we think this makes sense. We both have nice features planned, but the market doesn't always recognizes them because success needs more than features.