Actually, there is a serious point here.

Regulations follow control. Anyone that controls a financial services project may be liable under the eyes of law enforcement.

In that event the person(s) who are deemed to be in control, they would have to apply for regulatory supervision. This is a project without boundaries, so regulatory control is worldwide.

Laying a claim to trademarks leaves open the door to regulatory control. That, I'm afraid to say, is a centralisation risk.

However, the darkcoin foundation can own trademarks. How it enforces them is a grey area. What is their economic loss, if they are a foundation that is ostensibly not making money or in it for profit.

To be on the safer side, Evan should step down from the foundation as he could be seen as controlling the keys to the project.

This is not unique to DRK, its a risk that a lot of projects have. Bitcoin has a foundation that supports core developers, so while this is a grey area, it is not without parallels.

If I could only reach in there and fix that for you  

ↄash

They're a long standing friend of mine, I've sold him many thousands of coins in the past, I wouldn't have posted about it but believe this should be in the public domain (not their ID of course) just as my wall movements are, say like a large truck having reversing indicators that bleep, best to try not to inadvertently run things over if possible when you're a whale I feel.

The good news, if you can call it that, is he's now out of coins.

Is all very interesting, but the point I was trying to make is he is just contradicting himself. He said the coins were property and then said owning 50% of property gave you rights which is not true.  That is like saying owning 51% of MacBooks  gave you rights over the trademarks.  He is just wrong and as far as I am concerned can do as he pleases.

Why would the Casino feel compelled to just dump it right away.  Why not let it sit in the sites bankroll??

Perhaps the site owner would like a new Porsche, who knows? Your guess is as good as mine on that I expect.

Edit: or Tesla, I'd go for midnight blue, pan sun roof, black interior, grey seats, piano black facia, reversing cam + all tricked out latest S model = $85,000 including tax in Calif for example.

Sure its possible but its just as likely that its a speculative move on the future price.

Wow, that's a tough night for your friend... Sorry to hear it

I think it has to do with who has control over the github repository.  And to be more precise, I think all that does is say we've had the project before the first application for a trademark, therefor we can contend the trademark.  That's it, that's it's only reason for being acquired.  So we can protect our use of the name.  

The owners of dashcoin continue to own their dashcoin which is only worth what someone is willing to pay.  Which means, btw, that if the last sale of a coin was 3 months ago for 0.00000001, and that causes the marketcap to read $3000 or something, it doesn't mean it really is worth $3000, just that that was the last sales price/marketcap that could be registered.