|
Title: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: remotemass on March 04, 2014, 12:36:54 AM I keep saying that bitcoins only exist as balances associated with a bitcoin address. What is kept is the private key that allows you to spend your bitcoin address bill.
I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills (DGB) instead of bitcoins, but he didn't listen. Now we have to keep telling everyone there are no coins whatsoever but no one seems to believe. Why is it so difficult to understand? The addresses have an associated bill resulting from chains of transactions. That bill that tell us the balance of an address only exists beause we keep a record of all validated transactions and rewards are given for that record validation and network maintainance, putting more units of the currency in circulation. We need to keep making it clear. To generate an address is actually just picking an arbitrary private key and finding its corresponding address. It's not difficult. It can get really simple, if you understand it correctly and are able to explain it. Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: franky1 on March 04, 2014, 12:44:57 AM I keep saying that bitcoins only exist as balances associated with a bitcoin address. What is kept is the private key that allows you to spend your bitcoin address bill. I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills (DGB) instead of bitcoins, but he didn't listen. Now we have to keep telling everyone there are no coins whatsoever but no one seems to believe. Why is it so difficult to understand? The addresses have an associated bill resulting from chains of transactions. That bill that tell us the balance of an address only exists beause we keep a record of all validated transactions and rewards are given for that record validation and network maintainance, putting more units of the currency in circulation. We need to keep making it clear. To generate an address is actually just picking a arbitrary private key and finding its corresponding address. It's not difficult. It can get really simple, if you understand it correctly and are able to explain it. cash bills.. are reminders of those paper IOU's that get reprinted without limit. i prefer coins as it represents money thats not a IOU Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: remotemass on March 04, 2014, 12:51:30 AM cash bills.. are reminders of those paper IOU's that get reprinted without limit. i prefer coins as it represents money thats not a IOU I quite agree that it is different than IOU. Unless you see it as cash bills that exist in the cloud and change hands when their private keys change. Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: BittBurger on March 04, 2014, 01:40:23 AM As far as marketing and adoption, aesthetics, semantics, ease of speech, and a brand name goes, "DigiCashBills" is ... terrible.
Bitcoin sounds good. 99% is in the name. No offense. Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: crazynoggin on March 04, 2014, 01:44:01 AM Bitcoin is a lot cleaner sounding than Digicashbills so it makes sense why he would have chosen Bitcoin. Besides, Bitcoin makes sense because essentially it refers to that it is a coin that is stored in bits.
Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: DieJohnny on March 04, 2014, 01:45:02 AM DigiCashBills WTF!!?!?!??!
blockchain would be in the dust bin of history with that name Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: jonald_fyookball on March 04, 2014, 01:50:23 AM I'm glad he didn't listen. That's a horrible name from a marketing perspective. No offense :-)
Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: DeathAndTaxes on March 04, 2014, 02:08:29 AM I keep saying that bitcoins only exist as balances associated with a bitcoin address. What is kept is the private key that allows you to spend your bitcoin address bill. I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills (DGB) instead of bitcoins, but he didn't listen. When you "told" him that I am surprised he didn't correct you that there is no such thing as "balances associated with an address" either. Bitcoin works on the concept of inputs and outputs. So if 0.5 BTC and 2 BTC were "sent" to the same address they exists as two discrete outputs (valued at 0.5 BTC & 2.0 BTC) in the blockchain not a balance of 2.5 BTC. Maybe this was a dream where you talked to "Satoshi" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/YoshiMarioParty9.png)? Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: justusranvier on March 04, 2014, 02:17:05 AM Coins are actually a better metaphor anyway.
Every unspent output is a discrete atomic entity, just like a coin. Where the metaphor breaks down a bit is that you don't just hand coins from one person to another: instead the sender melts them down and mints new ones that belong to the recipient. Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: franky1 on March 04, 2014, 03:07:32 AM Where the metaphor breaks down a bit is that you don't just hand coins from one person to another: instead the sender melts them down and mints new ones that belong to the recipient. bit-ingots or in remotemass's version digi-gold all of which are not as good as the name bitcoin Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: cbeast on March 04, 2014, 03:33:46 AM I imagined I dreamt I telepathically linked with Satoshi's previous life (you don't want to know). Anyways, it was the 1950's and we came up with "Electro-Platinum" or Eplat for short.
Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: keithers on March 04, 2014, 03:47:14 AM Digicashbills sounds like it is a collection agency.
Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: franky1 on March 04, 2014, 03:55:51 AM digicashbills sounds like something homer simpson would invent (compuglobalhypermeganet)
Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: remotemass on March 04, 2014, 04:42:25 AM Bitcoin works on the concept of inputs and outputs. So if 0.5 BTC and 2 BTC were "sent" to the same address they exists as two discrete outputs (valued at 0.5 BTC & 2.0 BTC) in the blockchain not a balance of 2.5 BTC. When you use a balance sheet or a ledger you also register discrete amounts that add up to balances when you do the math. In the blockchain there are only transactions registered, not balances, but there is nothing tangible in this chain of ownership for them to be compared to a token that can be kept in a digital wallet/file. They are just values correspondent to previous transactions, existing in the cloud, but you cannot in any sense keep them in a digital file, or use it in any way that could be thought of "as sending coins by email". That doesn't exist! It is much better to think of them as balances, and forget about those internals that make the units look like elctronic tokens and numbers. It doesn't surprise me that people keep utterly confused about it, because you use the complexity of it to mystify it with obscurantism instead of showing the simplicity of it, that lies in keeping the private keys that contain the correspondent bitcoin address but that cannot be guessed solely with it. Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: remotemass on March 04, 2014, 04:59:06 AM I think you don't like it because you didn't see it blossom like that.
Believe me, if Satoshi have had listen to me and did never had introduced the wallet file concept and called it digicashBTCill you would love it the same or even more and it would smell as sweet. Everyone would just type their private key (or pick a new one) with 256 radiobutton-like toggle buttons: to see its address and balance and to be able to send funds. And people would understand it much better. I guess. But he didn't listen. I agree that bitcoin as a name is much more Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: Lauda on March 04, 2014, 05:55:10 AM Luckily, he went with the current name.
Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: Zimbabwecoin on March 04, 2014, 07:19:26 AM No cryptocurrency longer than 2 syllables has any chance of success whatsoever. Well unless it flows really good....
Bitcoins is an amazing name. It works. Digicashbills does not exactly roll off the tongue. It's your lucky day! Digicashbills.com is available. I just checked and despite this long thread no one has been willing to spend 0.011 BTC or so to buy the domain name. Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: AnonyMint on March 04, 2014, 08:17:32 AM No cryptocurrency longer than 2 syllables has any chance of success whatsoever. Well unless it flows really good.... Your opinion(s) of a portmanteau of two small words (or word plus fragment) where one or both of them have 2 syllables, e.g. Ethereum? Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: auzaar on March 04, 2014, 08:18:13 AM I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills (DGB) instead of bitcoins, but he didn't listen. . Agreed, I also prod people to call people 'bunch of molecules', but they won't listen.Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: MrPiggles on March 04, 2014, 08:19:54 AM No cryptocurrency longer than 2 syllables has any chance of success whatsoever. Well unless it flows really good.... Your opinion(s) of a portmanteau of two small words (or word plus fragment) where one or both of them have 2 syllables, e.g. Ethereum? Until this post I assumed ethereum was a real word. Ethereal referring to something like ethereum. Learn something every day etc. Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: AnonyMint on March 04, 2014, 09:59:38 AM No cryptocurrency longer than 2 syllables has any chance of success whatsoever. Well unless it flows really good.... Your opinion(s) of a portmanteau of two small words (or word plus fragment) where one or both of them have 2 syllables, e.g. Ethereum? Until this post I assumed ethereum was a real word. Ethereal referring to something like ethereum. Learn something every day etc. So perhaps they succeeded? But isn't it important for the name to mean something about what the product actual is and does? What the heck does "ethereum" mean to your average bloke who is invested in Bitcoin? Ether has some very distant connection to cloud computing or intangible matter, but what does that say about decentralized money or contracts? I just don't think most people will get it. Whereas Bitcoin is at least is a coin. The Bit part is ambiguous to non-geeks, why I bite the coin or I only get a little bit of a coin? Non-geeks don't know what a digital bit is. Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: SirWilliam on March 04, 2014, 11:05:02 AM Nevermind that, *I* told Satoshi to call it "Compudoughbucks" and he IGNORED ME! And NOW LOOK at what's happened because it's called "bitcoin." What a dummy!
Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: remotemass on March 04, 2014, 12:18:52 PM Nevermind that, *I* told Satoshi to call it "Compudoughbucks" and he IGNORED ME! And NOW LOOK at what's happened because it's called "bitcoin." What a dummy! Compudoughbucks looks a bit like Commodore. Is not too bad :P Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: AnonyMint on March 04, 2014, 03:24:05 PM Nevermind that, *I* told Satoshi to call it "Compudoughbucks" and he IGNORED ME! And NOW LOOK at what's happened because it's called "bitcoin." What a dummy! Compudoughbucks looks a bit like Commodore. Is not too bad :P I guess Monatari and MoanAtari were already taken by the monks and Playdoughs. I came within proximity of Jack Tramiel at CES 1989 (?) and met Sam Tramiel at their HQ in the valley. Seriously though I would have gone for Digithingamajig. :-\ :D Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: bitserve on March 04, 2014, 03:38:17 PM At least Satoshi had some sense of marketing and didn't listen you.
It isn't a bill either. So you don't even get your own point. Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: AnonyMint on March 04, 2014, 03:43:23 PM It isn't a bill either. Agreed. Then what is it? :-X Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: wheatstone on March 04, 2014, 04:15:33 PM How about just calling it bitgold like the original proposal bitcoin certainly looks to be based on?
Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: AnonyMint on March 04, 2014, 04:22:46 PM How about just calling it bitgold like the original proposal bitcoin certainly looks to be based on? I've had several people tell me that pisses them off because it slanders what gold is. The more the issue of taint rises, the more I agree with that perspective. Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: remotemass on March 04, 2014, 06:30:02 PM What about Dickbills and a note saying:
(it would have been called digicashbills but that's not so short). KEEP YOUR DICKBILLS SAFE AT ALL TIMES!!! Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: DieJohnny on March 04, 2014, 06:31:22 PM What about Dickbills and a note saying: (it would have been called digicashbills but that's not so short). KEEP YOUR DICKBILLS SAFE AT ALL TIMES!!! Haha however, I like a coin called TheBigD Everywhere you go you could ask if they take TheBigD HOLY ShiZZZ someon make that coin hahaha Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: keithers on March 04, 2014, 09:11:46 PM i told Satoshi to call it Clitcoin
Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: SirWilliam on March 04, 2014, 09:23:03 PM This is great! Let's have a contest for the best name that Satoshi SHOULD have called Bitcoin!
Compudoughbucks does remind one of Commodore and that's as cool as a whole computer stuffed into a keyboard in the 80s. Colecoins (pronounced CO-LEE-COINS of course) is another alternative... Colecovision rocked... Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: AnonyMint on March 05, 2014, 02:36:53 AM Since we've diverged into the sexual hindbrain of the white males who dominate Bitcoin, I propose...
Queefit or Bitvart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginal_flatulence) Title: Re: I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills Post by: wheatstone on March 05, 2014, 06:59:16 PM How about just calling it bitgold like the original proposal bitcoin certainly looks to be based on? I've had several people tell me that pisses them off because it slanders what gold is. The more the issue of taint rises, the more I agree with that perspective. Taint... It's a really bad word for what is actually a "might possibly stem from, if we average everything". It's a fundamentally misapplied term for the way the bitcoin network works. Take the simple example of a thief that steals 1 btc and makes a shared transaction with an innocent, with both of them transferring 1 btc (each) to one other output. The thief transfers 1 btc from one output to another, the innocent 1 btc from one (different) output to another. Because of the way bitcoin works, it's not possible to tell which amounts go where. However, the thief still has 100% of his ill-gotten gains and the innocent is still 100% innocent. Taint has no place in bitcoin. |