• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Multi-brand Dash

GrandMasterDash

GrandMasterDash

Well-known member
Masternode Owner/Operator
For years DCG has worked tirelessly, an uphill struggle, to reverse the stigma of dash being a “privacy coin”. During this time, however, dash has also gained a lot of free press coverage purely because of it’s privacy features. Personally, I’d rather DCG embrace the bad boy image, leverage the notoriety and gain some street cred for rejecting the authority of others. But they didn’t, they invented the matchstick but decided not to light the fire.

Dash is both the good guy and the bad boy of crypto, the schizophrenic. In contrast, bitcoin occupies a comfortable position, beyond the consideration of de-listing. The recent de-listing of dash from ShapeShift makes the case that bitcoin remains untouchable, no fear of reprisals from regulators.

But I think there is a solution that DCG would welcome, a branding fork. To remain 100% compatible with the dash chain while having a Darkcoin branded desktop wallet. Very much like Linux Mint is Ubuntu without the fluff. Or that Dash Electrum reworks the mixing function. In theory, other privacy layers could also be implemented, such as Dandelion++, STONEWALL or Tor by default. This would, however, have to be a community effort and nothing to do with DCG. Is there enough momentum to create such a thing?
 
I think the Darkcoin days are definitively behind us, trying to embrace the Darkcoin name on a desktop wallet will just send very mixed signals and will undo most of the work and messaging that Dash Core Group has been doing with strategic partners and large exchanges to accept and embrace Dash, despite its optional privacy feature. Introduce the Darkcoin name again on a desktop wallet and you will risk not only loosing those partners & exchanges that currently have no problem with the Dash name, but maybe even draw more unwanted attention from regulators.

Bad idea if you ask me. And from a marketing point of view, i view it as a very bad idea. Mainstream adoption will most likely never happen, if we were to use multi-name branding. It will just confuse people, it would confuse me.

Lets give Dash Core Group some time to see if they can change the opinion of ShapeShift about Dash, they were able to change the opinion of other exchanges about Dash in the past as well, after they announced to delist Dash.

Dash is still traded there : https://okex.co.kr/kr/view/exchange/full?coin=DASH&market=BTC

Dash is still traded there : https://www.coinspot.com.au/buystop/dash

Dash is still traded there : https://swyftx.com.au/buy/dash-dash/

I find it ironic that ShapeShift (US) has announced to delist Dash for regulatory concerns, while Ledger (France) recentely implemented a swap function inside their hardware wallets that fully support Dash. This shows me that the problem is specifically related to the US. I would not be surprised if Ledger start to exclude US customers from participating in their Ledger wallet swap feature.

Link : https://www.ledger.com/swap

Kindly note that the Swap feature is not available for each country due to local regulations.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
qwizzie said:
I think the Darkcoin days are definitively behind us...
Click to expand...

Maybe I didn't explain it well. I am not asking DCG to do this work, quite the opposite. I am wondering if there's any enthusiasm for an independent group of developers to fork the code of the desktop wallet and build a Darkcoin brand, and possibly extending it's privacy functionality. It would use the dash blockchain and remain 100% interchangeable with dash, but it would appeal to a specific group of users that are never going away. Privacy projects are here to stay, this is a way to keep them in the loop without exiling them completely. if this was successful, DCG could then remove the Private Send function from their official wallet without affecting the underlying protocol and allowing end users to exert their right to privacy.
 
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Two problems i foresee :

* can we trust third party developers / independent group of developers to the same degree, as we currently trust our Dash Development Team ?
* is it smart to re-introduce the name Darkcoin again ? Maybe that will make things more difficult for those third party developers / independent group of developers ?
 
Last edited:
qwizzie said:
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Two problems i foresee :

* can we trust third party developers / independent group of developers to the same degree, as we currently trust our Dash Development Team ?
* is it smart to re-introduce the name Darkcoin again ? Maybe that will make things more difficult for those third party developers / independent group of developers ?
Click to expand...

I have some trust in the Dash Electrum team and they're independent. Actually, I think the Dash Electrum team would be well suited for such a project, but I dread to think how much they would ask from the treasury.

I think resurrecting the Darkcoin name has a lot of potential. It sends a very clear message to a very specific group of people and I suspect that group of people would be very comfortable with the name.

Another example, dash is about to be an atomic swap within the Beam wallet (imminent). And I would like to see this reciprocated i.e. the dash-beam swap available from within the dash desktop wallet. But I'm sure DCG are too busy / focused on other things to entertain such an idea, more so that they're trying to keep a low key regarding privacy technologies. But a Darkcoin team could...

@akhavr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top