- Mar 9, 2014
Problem is, I simply can't read Penrose. I'm usually pretty good at understanding theoretical physics without too much math, but Penrose confuses me with the way he writes. If you can suggest an interpreter (yes, I'm a native English speaker) I'd love the suggestion because frankly, I want to understand some of his points but fall asleep when reading him. LOL, thanks, and yah, back to Dar... er... DASH?Actually Tante I am working on that R & QM thing, but that would really be off topic. (Suffice it to say that Einstein missed something important--namely what time and space were relative to. He seems to have thought it was to each other based on velocity. His def. of time highlights his error. Time is not what a clock measures--Time is what conscious entities measure with a clock. On the QM side R. Penrose gets close.):what:
To answer your earlier question more directly. Evan released an open source code that the market seems to like. He does not own it since he open sourced it. He MAY now own the trademark for Dash, but that remains to be seen. Owning a trademark ONLY gives you a right to sue in Federal Court. Under Common Law, first use in commerce is a defensible right IF you go to court, and then only on a State by State basis. To my knowledge Evan has never sold anything bearing the name Darkcoin or Dash, and any claim to the name Dash would be based on the legitimacy of the contract he obtained from the previous Dashcoin Developer. Whether HE truly owned the name is an open question. Personally I suspect that the Board of Directors are the only ones at risk due to the fact that the foundation is an entity created by the State and hence completely under its jurisdiction. They could in theory be sued by an entity claiming that they are infringing on their ownership of DASH. However, in the absence of actual sale of product, it would be difficult to demonstrate damages. The URL would be another issue. At this point We can call our coin, wallets, and nodes, anything we like. Just like you can name your child Coca Cola--but I suspect you are a better mother than that.
Had they asked me (and they had no reason to:tongue I would have advised against forming such an entity, but what is done is done. To my chagrin, most Churches are formed as 503c Corporations and have no idea that this puts them under the total control of the State. It is done in exchange for favorable tax status, and to protect the leadership from suits. Only now are many finding that the price was far too high. Much better the system employed by the Roman Catholic organizations whose holdings are held in trust by a Vicar who does not own, but manages the trust holdings.
Peace to you my dear...
Sorry it is clearly past my bedtime and this surely falls under the catagory of TMI.
Also, no that was super interesting and answered many questions. Thanks, not TMI, I'm sure others wonder too!