It also looked like he had to be a lot more politically correct there.  Almost apologetic that he made another coin.  Undoubtedly, the atmosphere is still volatile toward dissidence with some people there. 

Maybe it's time to hold small Dash meetups now?  Not quite convention, but more like Bitcoin Wednesday?

How will you get around the principle of something you know, something you have and something you are? If there is nothing that can be tied back to something you have on your device then it means that there is only something you know which is the passphrase. This would open it up to phishing attacks and social engineering that can be executed remotely to attack the funds on the network.

In addition, how will recoverability work in the event of a negative event eg. a user died and bequeathed his passphrase to someone else?

The proposal merges the two coins and they'll keep whatever stake they had, but in Darkcoin instead. It's the first "coin-merge" to ever happen in crypto.

This is beyond preposterous for two reasons:

a) You're going to dilute my DRK holdings to merge us with some shitcoin nobody has ever heard of?

b) You have the power to do so? Isn't crypto all about decentralization and math-based consensus to a (relatively) immutable basic protocol? I realize we are still in the development stages of DRK and consequently Evan has an unusual amount of power (e.g. enforcement), but this is a real reach. One person creating more coins in direct contravention of the basic protocol? If Evan can create more coins any time he wishes, how is he any different than the Federal Reserve?

c) This *WILL* fork DRK. Guaranteed. Look at the massive amount of opposition so far...I haven't counted but it looks about 2:1 against. Even if you reverse those numbers, you will have a significant number of DRK owners who *WILL* fork DRK into another coin. And then what do you have? The exact brain-drain you were hoping to avoid, plus market ambiguity, plus a massive loss of investor confidence.

P.S. Even with the reward structure of future blocks being altered to prevent inflation, the creation of a superblock by the DRK devs *after implementation* will rock our coin onto its heels. If one person (Evan) can create more DRK for a good reason, what's to prevent him from creating more DRK for a bad reason (at some point down the road)?

I have been one of DRK's biggest supporters, and everybody here knows this. But hearing that the dev team is even considering something like this makes me almost want to sell my coins. It's that bad of an idea.

DASH evolution released and DASH tanks.  People are finally seeing through all the smoke.  Evan again promises the world but technical details will follow in other white papers.

Yeah, we were at a early stage negotiating a merger to acquire more developer resources, but the proposal was leaked beforehand and both communities denied it.

We decided to call it off completely and solved the lack of resources differently.

One year later the team of Dash is larger than ever.

I looked at your "example."  That's just TPTB (aka Anonymint) being his usual insane self.

Gmax is a stickler for attribution because he believes in FOSS.

As a FOSS supporter he is happy for others to use the tools he's invented, whether for profit or not.

evans announcement (should be coming soon, i pinged him already) would be the one on DT