Bitcoin Forum

Lately I've been noticing that people love the blockchain but not bitcoin. Nasdaq wants to use the bitcoin blockchain but not bitcoin... will the term bitcoin get left behind? Will the new term for unspent outputs on the blockchain be renamed to bllockchain shares or blockchain packets? If so domain speculators should get. Buyblockchains.com or similar

this is was my worry of which i was talking in another thread, it appears that every big is looking only at the bitcoin technology, the blockchain, but not at the bitcoin itself, something like this can obscure too much bitcoin and drop it on the back burner

Blockchain technology is awesome, extremely powerful and free.

Bitcoin is a coin using that technology. It's as powerful as we keep it.
Bitcoin's blockchain is the strongest blockchain, with most users, most copies and biggest computing power to sustain it.
Whoever wants to use the safest blockchain will have to use Bitcoin.
The others will make cheap copies for themselves.

It's normal. We also have 1001 clone coins and nobody felt that Bitcoin is left behind.
Why now?

I think branding Bitcoin as "The Blockchain" is actually a positive move for the short term.

As an example, my company, Vector Interactive Group (www.vectorinteractive.net (http://www.vectorinteractive.net)), just recently produced the following 4k video for iNation (please don't troll our client!). 

https://youtu.be/EG5iEhyNuq0 (https://youtu.be/EG5iEhyNuq0)

I chose to use the Bitcoin symbol in the video while using the term, "Blockchain" in the voice over.  My reasoning?  When trying to reach a mainstream audience, one has to remember that they have been bombarded with negative sentiment (and sometimes flat out lies) about Bitcoin in the mainstream press.  "Bitcoin has crashed," "Bitcoin is used by Criminals to Buy Drugs," "The CEO of Bitcoin died," "Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme," etc.  In effect, these people have been primed to ignore Bitcoin. So if you come out and say, "Bitcoin," your promotion will probably fall on deaf ears.

So in order to turn the tables around you have to be sneaky and give them a reason to do their own research.  Self discovery is very powerful and can undo the negative sentiment.  If they already understand the power of the blockchain, chances are they already did their research and understand the merits of Bitcoin. If they don't know what the blockchain is, they will be primed to do their own research and inevitably reach the same conclusions as those in the Bitcoin community. 

The more people start trusting the blockchain, the more people will start trusting bitcoin.

That's my two bits

What do they want, a centralised blockchain? i'm not getting exited about that idea.

a new decentralised blockchain? how will they do that?

If they want to use the blockchain they need Bitcoin, they know that right?

Ore is it they wont tell the media they love Bitcoin also, that wil trigger a huge rally and burns there planning? Bitcoin got so much power, it make sence tho.

Good question from OP, i'm gonna think about it for some time.

With NASDAQ entering the use of the blockchain tech, possibly so.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/nasdaq-details-upcoming-use-bitcoins-block-chain-tech/

As I understand they are going to use THE blockchain which will require bitcoins to transact. I'm thinking tge units currenly known as btc will be renamed blockchain shares or packets

After reading this, i'm more sure they will using BTC

https://coincenter.org/2015/05/wall-street-is-using-bitcoin-not-just-the-blockchain/

Classic case of fooling people into using something with a more neutral piece of nomenclature. There are already some fancy ass services using bitcoin as their backbone with zero mention of that actual word.

If you want to get shit done then you need the strongest and most established blockchain. The only reason not to use Bitcoin is its negative perception with the uninformed. You can bypass all of it by using 'blockchain' instead and everyone wins.

Yep, I guess it'll make the ball rolling

What those retards don't get is the fact a blockchain needs a cryptocurrency to serve as an incentive to keep the blockchain going, unless you want a filthy centralized blockchain with fiat, in other words a complete Frankenstein abortion of the real thing, which no one with half a brain should condone.

Most companies are full of people who are only interested in the latest buzz word and don't understand Bitcoin. I feel their use of "block chain technology" is an attempt to sell their product using advertising hype coupled with the latest buzz word. We will soon be overwhelmed with a multitude of useless apps using "block chain technology" just like we have been overwhelmed with a multitude of useless alt coins.

New word for new hype imo

I just said this on twitter:


I think in every single instance it's going to be Bitcoin that is being utilized.

If company's use there own block chain who is going to verify and mine it?  What is incentive?  How much money is it going to cost to make it secure?  Use bitcoin block chain or gtfo.

I feel there's confusion. I'm not saying they will create their own chain. That wouldn't work because noone would mine it or run a node. My OP intended to ask the question if the unit of value, currently known as bitcoin will be rebranded as blockchain shares or packets since they don't like the association to bitcoin. Its still the same thing just being rebranded

Please send me 10 blockchain? Start your blockchain client? Nope, it's definitely bitcoin.

Gbtc shares are worth .1 blockchain.

Bitcoin is the currency, blockchain is the innovative technology. A currency is not the only use of the blockchain technology. If corporations want to create their own blockchain, they can. If they want to the most secure blockchain, they will have to use bitcoin.

Read the OP's posts, guys.

No, bitcoin is not going to get rebranded into blockchain packets or whatever. The simple reason is, which sounds more catchy?

The thing is, the first delusional ultra libertarians who worship bitcoin for decentralization of currency or whatever is only a very very small percentage of the world. The rest of the world doesn't care about that.

What the rest of the world is looking for, is REAL technology that can improve lives, and that is enabled by the blockchain. So they talk about that. In the end though, a bitcoin is still a bitcoin, the name won't be changed.

they want to adapt the blockchain yet, how are they going to use it? with what coin?

unless they assume theres other ways of using it. I doubt they would want to re-create the name already have so many people looking on google, itd be a dumb move.

the keyword bitcoin is high search volume compared to blockchain.

yes I think it is but i think that is "natural' in the sense that as time goes on for various reasons things get name changes - people used to say they were about to go on the internet. now they would say I am about to go on facebook or google or whatever. A use is often a good descripton for something.

i think it can only be positive for bitcoin especially since it has had a chequered past in some eyes.

also people do not care about what TV remote they use they just want access to the TV image. So they will not care if bitcoin is doing the work of the remote in things using the blockchain.

agree with others that bitcoin is what will be used - it works well doing what it does so there is no need for people to start up their own coins/tokens. that being said some people will - in part to scam others or because they think they are a "big' enough corporation they could sustain their own token

What is the minimum size transaction accepted by the network right now? 5,430 satoshi or something?

Let's say when wallstreet starts trading using bitcoin they name 5,430 satoshi a blockchain packet or a blockchain share?
I'm saying could it be possible that wallstreet might do this so they can use and transact in bitcoin without having to say the word bitcoin? There's a reason you see these articles where they only mention blockchain technology and not bitcoin, and I'm assuming that's due to the negative association that comes with the word bitcoin.

no......

How many Satoshi's will Nasdaq need for (all) there stocks?

If they move a share with a cost of 1 Satoshi, they will have enough with 1000 coins  ???

Once their blockchain experiments fail they will understand why Bitcoin is the next huge thing and work under the Bitcoin wings and not against it. Lol at not using the most powerful computing network in the motherfucking planet for free! ridiculous.

I don't see any point for a corporation to require a blockchain. They can use excel or some database if they need a triple entry accounting system.
The whole use case of a blockchain is to build a system based on decentralized trust.

Is there a single case where a technological happening was completely outlawed after it had been initially welcomed/ tolerated? I can't really think of one.

It's no different in essence than Tor or Bittorrent and they're both perfectly legal.

It's far more acceptable and straightforward to just make it irrelevant by offering more tempting alternatives that are easier to use. The population will go where the gains and convenience reside.

blockchain tech will be the king, and btc is the prince.  overall it will be a game of what else the blockchain can do. btc got the currency part covered.  whats next for the sub category of the blockchain. voting maybe?

Block Chain Technology:  BCT rather than BTC?

Or BTC (blockchain transfer credits)

You got me there, but I was referring more to places like the US and Europe.

There are no shortage of odd little regimes that have probably outlawed stuff we use every single day elsewhere without blinking. I could probably find someone somewhere who outlawed having a nice shit.

Corporate Blockchains can only survive if they can convince everyone that the coin supporting it will continue to have value.  It needs a currency backing it in order for people to maintain the blockchain. If corporations try to proprietize and centralize their blockchain, it will eventually fail.  Bitcoin has leaps and bounds ahead of every altcoin blockchain in that regard.  It would take a massive change to disrupt that and all the venture capital currently supporting Bitcoin

Riiight.

Trying to outlaw Bitcoin will only bring more attention towards it, thats why intelligent countries are threatening it as neutral foreign currency and stupid low IQ countries are being negative towards it.

That's a nice train of thought, but the mass is usually too sheep type to do their own research, otherwise they would have found out that Bitcoin is amazing and they would all be posting here. Let's keep positive tho, hopefully it eventually happens one way or another.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. Take for example, the NASDAQ news. This does not mean that NASDAQ will use Bitcoins as a currency but to dip into its technology the important contribution of the currency to the world of finance is recognized. This is the first time in history in which a trading system does not require a third party intermediary. While this may not seem new, within the banking sector is revolutionary.
What this means is, even if you don't mention Bitcoin, it's Bitcoin.

its quite simple really,
Either Bitcoin adapts to the financial interest of the world, (the economic majority)
or the financial interests (the economic majority) of the world adapt to Bitcoin.

I am invested in the latter. if you want Bitcoin you need to put value into the system, or F*%# off. Developers working to change the incentive structure in the Bitcoin prototypical that secures Bitcoin are opening up a gateway for "block chain technology  :P" and providing ways to leverage Bitcoin - move transactions off the dominant value ledger, and create new value ledgers, call them sidechains or whatever. They will leave the incentive structure that protects and makes Bitcoin vulnerable, the blockchain technology that will grow the biggest value network is the one chosen by the economic majority.  The risk is the economic majority don't value the fundamental economic principals embodied in Bitcoin, they prefer the Keynesian view of exponential growth they may choose something more favorable a blockchain tecnology that fits their own view than choose Bitcoin given an option.
  

Bitcoin is the Blockchain, bitcoins are the unit we use to describe the % of the blockchain we command,  if we can keep Bitcoin, prevent it from being co opted and changed, the economic majority will have no choice but to move into Bitcoin. in my view, this down trend, is a strong reflection that the certainty of that happening is diminishing.  


That said, Bitcoin needs to scale, and the scaling mechanics need to remain true to the incentives in the core protocol otherwise it will be co opted much like our existing financial system. Many of the treats presented are FUD, centralization for eg. promotes FUD, we want specialization, but we don't want 1 specialist - the FED is 1 specialist with few interest groups, Bitcoin by comparison is 100% decentralized, the fact that nodes may be shrinking in quantity is more a reflection on specialization than it is a move towards a centralization or a 1 specialist type system. but we still need to be mindful, because it's a real threat.  

The biggest threat to Bitcoin in my mind are the developers, they are the keepers of the protocol, they are programers developers, they make engineering decisions to solve practical real world problems in Bitcoin. the caveat is most of them are young, and don't have 30 or 40 years of economic experiences to draw on, so some value the clever and innovative technological engendering above the economic engineering that makes Bitcoin Bitcoin. to participate you need to understand both the economics and the engendering, unfortunately only one person has proved himself thus far, and his name was Satoshi. There are lots of more competent developers involved, but not all of them have convinced me they are competent macro economic Actuaries.

in reflection of the idea above, lets say transaction fees where set to 0.1%, then the cost to secure Bitcoin as Block rewards diminished and the network grew, would equalize at about 0.1% of GDP to maintain the decentralized system. at the moment as a % of GDP the cost of managing money is greater than the the cost of global manufacturing, who knows what the correct ratio is, but i sure know that the guy that makes stuff is more valuable than the middle man i use to pay him, and i can see how Bitcoin can can reduce the cost of the middleman to the minimum needed to transact in a global way.

but a better solution is to offset all incentives so that everyone is incentivized to be as efficient as necessary and to operate in a competitive environment, this is the Bitcoin we have today, all costs will evolve to the marginal profit on the basic cost of utility, provided we are able to scale with out eroding the current incentive sachems reflected in the Bitcoin protocol.

Hey, let them called it what they like, blockchain technology does sound kinda cool and doesnt have the "oh no everyone is going to lose their money @ mtgox" attachment.  You could rename bitcoin the currency and nothing changes... circle not mentioning bitcoin in a transfer etc.

I was hoping it would be synonymous when you say blockchain and people would automatically relate it to bitcoin but looks like the trend is decoupling. People seems to be more interested to develop something new based on the blockchain and right now people have been putting forward new ideas on what they can do with it. Blockchain is the technology but bitcoin is just branding and what we can do is to continue promoting bitcoin and hoping they continue to link it together

My exact thought when I read the OP, but you summed it up way better than I could have.

Yes that seems the trend, maybe it's just a way to ease the way to more investments without looking at this bubble complete burst and maybe focussing on the market after that when a recovery and a rise will be evident.

This only tells you ONE thing: They are all AMBIVALENT towards crypto

i would say better, by saying that bitcoin is the instrument of the blockchain, and they don't like that instrument, they are rebranding it in something that suits more their needs

for they i mean those who are against bitcoin

It tells me that they actually like bitcoin, but when they want to tell the public they are using it they would rather say blockchain technology.

This. Some doubled goxxed scam or this shiny new blockchain?