Search results

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. :wink:

How is this going to work? Will we re-vote on a few new options created by designers (based on the winning design #1)?

With six designs we already have about 100 different opinions... At most we should add Pille's original and aaxx1503's combination of that and 6 then have a vote.

The thing I worry with Pille's submission is that someone who doesn't know that it is supposed to read DASH will think it is "some random symbol" + ash. That is why I like 6. The D is more closed off and the upside down V can only really be an A. Also PSA, I think it is only 10 DASH to join...

Yeah, seems like it was added later. :tongue: So then 6 is my fav with 1 a close second.

Which number is this one supposed to be? 3? It is really nice...

Evan, will the voting include all foundation members or just those on the board? I assume it is the later, but it is best to be clear about these things so that regular foundation members do not get their hopes up.

There was no poll, but it is pretty obvious if you read this forum and the BCT thread that the community was rallying around DASH. Hell, without any prompt from Evan the BCT thread has basically been an informal DASH logo design competition for the past couple days now. :wink:

It is not our fault. YOUR developer sold the right to us. If you have complaints direct them at the correct person.

How is the protection of the name Darkcoin going to be handled? If not protected, there will be a fork of DASH named Darkcoin made tomorrow and ton of intentional brand confusion from detractors.

More than anything else right now we need a CLEAR statement from Evan or another core team member as to how this process will proceed. People posting this or that idea in a chaotic fashion over 2 forums mixed in with heavy trolling (on BCT) is only breeding more uncertainty. We need a clear...

Well to be fair the coin is not going to become less anonymous because we are changing the name. The idea that the name Darkcoin hurts adoption is a fair point especially given that those who are trying to pitch DRK to business are failing because of the name. In the long run this help us. My...

Key part of this is "if done right". Already we are off to a bad start by blindsiding core team members with this announcement. IMO, the next step should be to finalize the name, but rather than Evan doing this unilaterally, he should discuss a large number of options amongst the core team --...

100% agree. It seems like this was only discussed with the foundation board members (some of which are not all that active in the community) and NOT with the other Core devs. That is nonsensical. If we lose dev talent over this then DRK will much worse off than if we had kept the name and...

Don't misunderstand my point. I have no problem with testing. Actually, that was the point of my first post. Someone (preferably someone who is worried about this attack) should try to DDOS the MNs. If it works then we need to come up with a solution and if it doesn't then this should be...

Everything has tradeoffs. I am fine with option 2 to make DDOS more difficult if the negative effects are minimal, but if option 2 costs us enough in terms of MN response time which in turn harpoons IX... then what was the point.

Yeah, but how far ahead of time do you protect against before you are just wasting time. Evan seems to think that 2000+ nodes is fairly DDOS resistant and we have never seen a large number of MNs down due to this attack. That is enough for me until I see evidence to the contrary. There are a...

I see little point in spending money to prove the resistance of a network against an attack that not yet affected that network even on a small scale. My issue is with people who spout off attack vectors with a low probability of success or are otherwise properly dis-incentivized and waste...

People keep talking about DDOSing all the MNs like it is simple. Well if it is that simple then stop talking about it and DO IT!!! to prove your point. As a community, I don't think we should even consider that attack vector until we see at least a 1/4 or so MNs get simultaneously knocked out...

Really curious about this as I posted something similar a few pages back. I consider IP obfuscation for the end user when sending coins a key part of Darkcoin's privacy (IMO, nearly to the same level as Darksend) and it would suck if option 1 precluded this. What say you, Evan?