I repeat this from Darkcointalk:

"A welcome polyphony of opinions & emotions.

The very core of Darkcoin properties is, by itself, a bundle of features that go straight in your face! The face being that of the system and the Overlords. This is the underlying issue no one is really addressing when discussing "re-branding" and the name change. What eduffield has created is indeed a revolutionary tool, thusly the one that is not easily dealt with.

This is not the Occupy movement "they" could break by spraying people like they are cockroaches and beating them on the streets. This is an elegant, math based property (Darkcoin, that is) and we should decide once for all, is Darkcoin one of the tools "we the people" could use to further our rights and our freedoms or not. Than, and only than we should worry about some merchants (let these that agree with the message come in), some exchanges (let other flourish) and the name.

If Darkcoin is not a tool for freedom at most or a private digital cash at least, what is it than? A better bitcoin that would be, rest assured, attacked by the system no matter the name, precisely because of its properties. There's another possibility, of co-existing in peace. We build our better world, based on digital economy, digital freedoms and "they" calm down with their insane NSA spying, endless wars and treating us all as either their slaves or their cannon fodder and let us live in an entrepreneurial society. (versus this amalgam of politics, fiat money and corporations that create thinly veiled tyranny)

This is the very fundamental issue that popped up as a result of overly-lawyerly preemptive thinking that would not preempt anything. I propose to follow the advice Andreas Antonopoulos gave to the Canada's Senate Committee regarding the lawmakers' approach to bitcoin: "Do nothing! And let the technology grow."

 

Giving something a totally toxic name that stops it from growing isn't "doing nothing".

I think a triple bottom correction is in place after the rise to 0.016.
There should be weeks ahead of consolidation around the new brand decision.

Give me a break. It eludes me how such an intelligent man as yourself could have made such ridiculous arguments:

"TOXIC NAME"
If it was a "totally toxic name" for the last 12 months why you're in it?

"STOPPED GROWTH"
November 6th 2014
Darkcoin Marketcap $9,629,205
Total Masternode #   1147
Darkcoin Talk Members 1,853
Price in BTC 0.00521446
Price in USD $1.82

March 4th, 2015
Darkcoin Marketcap $19,097,420 (98.33% growth)
Total Masternode #   2261 (22.01% growth)
Darkcoin Talk Members 2,434 (114.56% growth)
Price in BTC 0.01330801 (155.21% growth)
Price in USD $3.60 (97.80% growth)

Tell me, please, how this totally toxic name has stopped Darkcoin's growth?

the name hasnt destroyed it the community tend to destroy everything for themselves. The tech is there but the community of pricks keep everything down as usual thinking you are all " NO IT ALLS"

Your all that delved into your own ego you will begin now to blame other things because you cant admit the fact that it is YOU...

ohh its the name.... ohh its the logo.... do one its YOU and your NEGATIVE communal comments

rant over

If so this last 40 pages of nonsense about a simple name change only serve as a great reminder of how young and fragile this coin is.

People, please let the water settles and try to be constructive for the common cause.

Darkcoin hasn't grown much in adoption. It's grown in valuation and development.

The only significant exchange it's on right now is Bitfinex. Although the name may not be "toxic" amongst early adopters (thats ourselves) it's a different story amongst the broader market.

BTCe, Chinese exchanges, US exchanges - none of them show the remotest hint of taking it. Of course that might be for reasons other than the name, but according to the accounts of 'coin staff' who've been 'out there' trying to get it promoted and adopted, the name categorically is a barrier to adoption.

If you think otherwise you need to come up with a better justification than simply "it's worked up till now". The only growth so far has come from the developer community and early adopters. New growth needs to come from new sources.

As I say - I'm not unhappy with the Darkcoin name but I'm not overly attached to it  either. All I'm saying is: there's a problem with the next phase of growth. The name is a documented issue. So do something about it.

dat dump
will it catch up or keep falling  

that dump was the price levelling out if you go sell your coins and value it to currency its still worth exactly the same as it was before the btc price rise....

Wrong again. Merchant Directory is growing, slowly like any other matrics I shared, but
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/merchant-directory-listing-updated-8th-march-2015.3445/

Exchanges, 27 of them include Darkcoin:
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/darkcoin/#markets
And at the end, how many do you think will stay? How many will pop up, and be happy to include the 5th biggest alt-coin on the market? If BTC-E is ignoring Darkcoin, well, they might change their minds. Why does that matter at this phase? On how many exchanges  you have accounts? On 2, 4, 10 or 40?

I have no clue who approached whom ("documented issue") and who replied what to whom regarding Darkcoin inclusion. But if the future Saint Coin approaches the same people and they would laugh into the Saint Coin's face, how that would reflect for the new brand, being a laughing stock?

Once should ASSESS the value of say BTC-E inclusion (24.80% of the BTC trading volume on Bitfinex) and have an agreement that the Saint Coin would be included once it drops its Darkcoin name. Same with merchants, providing these are not my friend's dive in Mexico but something of assessable value. Otherwise, yes, "doing nothing" and let the technology grow might be the best solution.