Darksend Rebranding Discussion

TheDashGuy

Well-known Member
Dec 16, 2015
1,228
1,010
183
PrivateTx? Just call it what it is, don't make people think too much.

edit:

Evan said it best. They don't need names, they are features of Dash and should be called such, we can have nicknames for the features but we should just explain that instant transactions are part of Dash and so on.
 

flare

Grizzled Member
May 18, 2014
2,286
2,404
1,183
Germany
I think we should ditch the names of these altogether. Attributes of currencies shouldn't have names especially when the underlying protocol can change. So it would be appropriate to say Dash supports privacy and instant transaction, but why does the process need a name? I'm sure both Darksend and InstantX won't be the final implementation or strategy we'll use, it'll get confusing to keep renaming them every 2 years. We could even have 2 or 3 separate subnetworks with different protocols.

Dash has instant transactions and privacy built in... sounds good to me
I agree, these features should be unnamed in future versions of Dash - a integral part of the package. Whatsapp introduced end-to-end encryption some days ago, did they name it "encryptiX"?
 

Macrochip

Active Member
Feb 1, 2015
226
195
103
I agree, these features should be unnamed in future versions of Dash - a integral part of the package. Whatsapp introduced end-to-end encryption some days ago, did they name it "encryptiX"?
No because it's default and you can't turn it on or off voluntarily like we can do with IX and DS over the Dash-Qt GUI. I fully agree that names can be ditched when the feature becomes default and not a choice. But until that's the case we still have to worry about naming opt-in features for distinction and marketing purposes.
 

David

Well-known Member
Jun 21, 2014
618
628
163
No because it's default and you can't turn it on or off voluntarily like we can do with IX and DS over the Dash-Qt GUI. I fully agree that names can be ditched when the feature becomes default and not a choice. But until that's the case we still have to worry about naming opt-in features for distinction and marketing purposes.
I agree with this. I think the "dark" part of "Darksend" is toxic and needs to go as soon as possible. If it means a temporary rebranding that's eventually removed, that's fine with me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gi01

David

Well-known Member
Jun 21, 2014
618
628
163
PrivateSend and InstantSend.

The more telling the words, the better Joe Average understands what it's for.

And, since I'm the poor soul who will most probably implement this in the CORE-client, it makes life MUCH easier to have words which are BOTH adjectives/adverbs and verbs, both for the UI and for the documentation as well.

I already did it as PoC with PrivacyProtect instead of Darksend (see https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/760), and it was (semantically) a mess.
I can only imagine..."Darksent" to "PrivacyProtected" being only the tip of the iceberg on that one..
 

fible1

Well-known Member
Dash Core Group
Masternode Owner/Operator
May 11, 2014
710
722
163
I like PrivacyProtect.

Pablo.
 

Ch0nG

Member
Oct 3, 2014
50
34
58
When it comes to public documentation the naming of various Dash technology is unnecessary, IMO. While the specifics should be easily found by anyone willing to ask/look for it, Jane and Joe Public generally don't care about how it works, they only care that it is easy to use and does what is promised. Just tell the public Dash is private, secure and instant.

That's okay for the documentation, but that can't be put on a checkbox or button of the wallet. For this we need good replacements for Darksend and/or InstantX. IMO InstantX is already quite good, I wouldn't replace it.
95% (!) of users won't change the defaults or want to mess with anything, even to make things more private. (See this article: https://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2011/09/14/do-users-change-their-settings/) IMO PrivacyProtect/DarkSend and InstantX should be the default, invisible to most users while letting them benefit from the privacy, security and speed of Dash.
 

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,841
2,649
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
I think the point is well taken that in the future, these names won't be needed. However for now, in V12.1, we will need to have these names sorted out. If the marketing whizzes do their jobs and bring people in, I want them to be greeted with an easy to understand wallet. The terms PrivateSend and InstantSend represent their functions well, IMHO PrivacyProtect and InstantX do not.

Once these terms are set, no need to change them again.

In the future it will just be Dash.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: itscrazybro

Gi01

Member
Apr 7, 2015
80
21
48
eduffield, while I think you are great "Dark" is something that shouldn't be on the wallet for mktg purposes. That's why I would remove it for sure and also make "Instant" a little easier to understand
 

Gi01

Member
Apr 7, 2015
80
21
48
eduffield, while I think you are great "Dark" is something that shouldn't be on the wallet for mktg purposes. That's why I would remove it for sure and also make "Instant" a little easier to understand
 

TheUltraaliens

New Member
Apr 22, 2016
12
5
3
Greetings,

It seems that the "PrivacyProtect" feature solely renders chosen Dash balances/transactions indiscernible via the Dash Blockchain.

I see it from a slightly different but additional perspective.

The whole of Dash Evolution should benefit from "PrivacyProtect" including any social interactions within the "user" namespace.

"Privately" as a feature name suggests that all within Dash Evolution environment "can" be rendered indiscernible via the Dash Blockchain.

e.g. Chat "Privately", transact "Privately", store (DashDrive) "Privately" etc...


Back in a Dash


TheUltraAliens
 
  • Like
Reactions: buster

Defacto

Member
Aug 20, 2015
50
30
58
Warsaw
Dash Address
Xj8PUS4r9vk5y8BvoovMoRpbhHXuW6uj5o
In most cases shorter is better. So PrivateX and InstantX. But... But people need to memorize and remember what specific function does... So PrivateSend and InstantSend are more clear. What about right to use all mentioned names? Does anyone checked that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: itscrazybro

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
That's okay for the documentation, but that can't be put on a checkbox or button of the wallet. For this we need good replacements for Darksend and/or InstantX. IMO InstantX is already quite good, I wouldn't replace it.
Agree. There needs to be a way to explain the different functions. InstantX has a fee and is faster - you can't just say I sent it the fast way...It makes no sense. We need positive connotation names like InstantSend and PrivateSend until they are not separate functions anymore.

The InstanTX and PrivaTX could work. But the TX has to be creatively put in the logo so it looks like the TX in transaction. If these words are converted to another language, will they end with a T so the TX works? The translation might not work.

InstantSend and PrivateSend are easy to say and spell. At this point - less confusing is way more important than trying to be cute with word blends. If you look at other languages it should be simple to just replace Instant, Private, and Send with another language. Actually for the benefit of using other languages this is a really good option.

PrivacyProtect might be good as a trademark for security. But it is too long for an actual function that you need to describe to others. Protect doesn't really add meaning here. Mining and the blockchain already protect your funds. Bringing it up as an option, just makes it confusing.
 

Bridgewater

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Dec 14, 2014
183
164
203
It seems to me like the name depends upon the feature implementation in the software interface.

If it is a global setting, i.e. a "privacy mode," then PrivacyProtect seems appropriate.

If it is a per-transaction choice of how to send funds, then PrivateSend seems appropriate.
 

jpr

Active Member
May 11, 2014
493
393
133
We could even have 2 or 3 separate subnetworks with different protocols.
You mean something like darksend trasactions would be in a different sidechain or something and recognizable by a merchant who could decide not to accept any premixed coins?
 

InTheWoods

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Oct 12, 2014
721
941
263
Why not add a poll to the thread?

PrivateSend and InstantSend seem like the best choice.
 

eduffield

Core Developer
Mar 9, 2014
1,084
5,323
183
You mean something like darksend trasactions would be in a different sidechain or something and recognizable by a merchant who could decide not to accept any premixed coins?
No I mean, what if we have one implementation of Darksend on Tier 1 and another implementation on Tier 3 using the messaging system? Is the second implementation Lightsend? What do we call that?
 

tungfa

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Apr 9, 2014
8,898
6,745
1,283
Evan mentioned his thoughts on the Roundtable show !
 
  • Like
Reactions: buster