Two questions: 1. Why did Satoshi invite one or more people to be friends on the P2P Foundation website just 1 day after the Newsweek article came out in March 2014? 2. Why did one of those people ID Peter Todd as Satoshi on January 15, 2016? Edit - See the last 3 pics of the article linked by OP. |
|
|
|
im making an executive decision to pick verge.
vergecurrency.com, .info, .org, and .net are now ours.
I respect that, you've put the most time and resources into this project. Will you at least answer the question Jwinterm and I have posted - what is the plural of Verge? Does that plural version sound good when you say it - can you imagine a cashier saying it to when they ring up purchase? usually with words like this, plural is the same, verge. "that will be 100 VERGE" "how many VERGE do you have?" "i just bought a million VERGE" etc Thanks, glad it was investigated.* Good luck w/ the re-branding effort. I'm a little worried about the choice, but I'll be rooting for its success nonetheless. I'd be happy to give some feedback along the way if sought (just PM me). *From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vergeFrom Middle French verge (“rod or wand of office”), hence "scope, territory dominated", from Latin virga (“shoot, rod stick”), of unknown origin. Earliest attested sense in English is now-obsolete meaning "male member, penis" (c.1400). Modern sense is from the notion of 'within the verge' (1509, also as Anglo-Norman dedeinz la verge), i.e. "subject to the Lord High Steward's authority" (as symbolized by the rod of office), originally a 12-mile radius round the royal court, which sense shifted to "the outermost edge of an expanse or area." Noun[edit] verge ( plural verges) ... Etymology 2[edit] Latin virgō. Noun[edit] verge f (plural verges)female virgin ( female person who has never had sexual intercourse) Noun[edit] verge f (oblique plural verges, nominative singular verge, nominative plural verges) i dig it. and if people want it to refer to the meaning of it in the 1400's, thats fine by me. virgin girls and penis only adds more machismo  but yeah, i like the english definition, plus it just sounds good. verge1 vərj noun 1. an edge or border."they came down to the verge of the lake" synonyms: edge, border, margin, side, brink, rim, lip; More verb 1. approach (something) closely; be close or similar to (something). "despair verging on the suicidal" synonyms: approach, border on, come close/near to, be tantamount to; tend toward, approximate to, resemble "a degree of caution that verged on the obsessive" while being a cryptocurrency, our private network puts us on the outer edge of internet traffic, away from the mainstream where ip's are leaked everywhere and everything is easily traced/hacked. i think its important especially of late, that people start paying more attention to how they use the internet, and to start trying to use more privacy enabled software, for everything they do. and btw, yes all coins will be fine. we arent resetting the blockchain or anything.. the network is staying the same, and we'll have a brand spankin new nicer looking wallet =] I dunno, man, I'm going off the dictionary. The most common current meaning is: Noun[edit]
verge (plural verges)
A rod or staff of office, e.g. of a verger.
(Britain, historical) The stick or wand with which persons were formerly admitted tenants, by holding it in the hand and swearing fealty to the lord. Such tenants were called tenants by the verge.
The edge meaning is the number 2 most common meaning. Besides the plural form under any of the historical and modern uses being totally weird, an "edge" is both corporeal and incorporeal. Corporeally, an edge as a currency is definitely unique, but it makes little sense - you can't point to that definition and then re-appropriate the word's meaning to peoples' understanding of money very well using that same definition and knowing other definitions - one more common - also exist. Likewise, incorporeally, the definition and concept are the opposite of how money has existed and been understood since the days of wampum (not a battle really worth fighting right now by DOGED IMHO). In essence, I think it will be a real challenge to carve out an understanding of a "verge" as a unit of money (also weird in the singular) that people will understand intuitively within 5 seconds - but maybe that challenge will be really fun. Not trying to be negative here, I just have a different opinion on the choice and wished the decision calculus and process on this choice made more sense to me. I'd be lying if I said I thought the polling was not manipulated or that the goal posts w/ this deliberative process were not a moving target.  Anyway, and sincerely, good luck to all with this project. |
|
|
|
im making an executive decision to pick verge.
vergecurrency.com, .info, .org, and .net are now ours.
I respect that, you've put the most time and resources into this project. Will you at least answer the question Jwinterm and I have posted - what is the plural of Verge? Does that plural version sound good when you say it - can you imagine a cashier saying it to when they ring up purchase? usually with words like this, plural is the same, verge. "that will be 100 VERGE" "how many VERGE do you have?" "i just bought a million VERGE" etc Thanks, glad it was investigated.* Good luck w/ the re-branding effort. I'm a little worried about the choice, but I'll be rooting for its success nonetheless. I'd be happy to give some feedback along the way if sought (just PM me). *From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vergeFrom Middle French verge (“rod or wand of office”), hence "scope, territory dominated", from Latin virga (“shoot, rod stick”), of unknown origin. Earliest attested sense in English is now-obsolete meaning "male member, penis" (c.1400). Modern sense is from the notion of 'within the verge' (1509, also as Anglo-Norman dedeinz la verge), i.e. "subject to the Lord High Steward's authority" (as symbolized by the rod of office), originally a 12-mile radius round the royal court, which sense shifted to "the outermost edge of an expanse or area." Noun[edit] verge ( plural verges) ... Etymology 2[edit] Latin virgō. Noun[edit] verge f (plural verges)female virgin ( female person who has never had sexual intercourse) Noun[edit] verge f (oblique plural verges, nominative singular verge, nominative plural verges) |
|
|
|
im making an executive decision to pick verge.
vergecurrency.com, .info, .org, and .net are now ours.
I respect that, you've put the most time and resources into this project. Will you at least answer the question Jwinterm and I have posted - what is the plural of Verge? Does that plural version sound good when you say it - can you imagine a cashier saying it to when they ring up purchase? |
|
|
|
... lol it hasnt been used in a few hundred years.. i think VERGE is the winner =] besides, with that meaning, it only adds to the power of the name! I don't like VERGE for a few reasons, but personal opinions aside, how is VERGE the winner with 40% of the vote? In some of the previous rounds I think other names had over 70% support. Some reasons not to like besides less than 50% support from people who voted: Hard to get search traction or short handles for promotion with things like: http://www.theverge.com/ , https://twitter.com/verge?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor , https://www.facebook.com/vergeSeems mostly unrelated to crypto or currency, and sounds similar to other scamish monosyllabic coins such as SPREAD, SWING, DASH, etc. No clear plural. Yep. People should think about their standards for choosing a name. I think it has to be a noun referring to a thing, and it shouldn't be easily confusable w/ something else (e.g., did you know verge has subscription points, wow - I just made that up). A name has to fit within common understandings of money or nobody will use it beyond a pump and dump. Look at the history of money and the successful cryptos, the names are short and sweet. they don't try to be clever or cute. they are boring - its what people expect. they try to last a long time, not be a fad or trend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_currenciesRE: features of this coin - The privacy features are awesome. Focusing on that will draw a lot of unwanted scrutiny and hornets " https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2216.msg29280#msg29280". I think it would be very cool and unique to make the privacy features w/ this coin the best kept open secret in cryptocurrency (like the first rule of fight club). Lastly, and to be completely honest, I'm a little disappointed and frustrated with how the voting and process therefor have panned out recently. Please read my prior posts if you haven't yet voted or made a decision, there you'll find some things to think about in choosing a name. Beyond that, I probably won't chime-in with feedback anymore on this topic since its not generating interest, but I will be thinking hard about and researching project management and cryptocurrency communities for some side projects I have going. I may share some of that work if it looks like this thread starts attracting more folks interested in formulating pillars or benchmarks for sustainable, long-term success in areas beyond the solid developing work. |
|
|
|
I must admit you have a very cool radio!
Few live talking listened and only i can say awesome!
How is this radio is financed?
It is cool. There are some good shows and the music is usually solid. EDIT - what is the plural of verge? that'll 8.47 verges, please? |
|
|
|
I like a lot of them. Keep adding and re-polling. Eventually come up with the top 2-3 and set a final vote. But so far a lot of good ideas...
yep, reset votes n added more names, removed 1. Cog is off the table? edit - It was not part of the most recent poll at the time I posted this, after some votes had already been cast. |
|
|
|
|
@DogeDev
Respectfully, resetting the voting and adding options made the chances of agreement much more difficult. Cog had about 70% of the votes here for about 2 days beyond the deadline announced on the Twitter poll (where Cog finished 2, but not far off 1 and where there were about 1/2 the votes as here). Voting polls like the one here are better operated when you delete one or more of the lowest vote getter(s) and re-poll or re-talley until you get to a winner. However, here, adding more choices has split whatever voters any of the previously listed choices had. Please consider eliminating choices at this point so we can move towards something effectively. If you prefer to stick with DOGED, we should eliminate voting altogether.
No offense implied here, just my friendly suggestion
|
|
|
|
Splash sounds like a Ripple knock-off. A few pages back, I asked this question which I'll post again here just to raise the issue - not seeking a response per se: How are people deciding exactly (i.e., what factors are in important in choosing a name)? More questions to think about: - Who are the desired users (everyone, or just a group with a shared affinity)?
What is currency supposed to do?
How do you know what meets your standards and what does not (are there examples of each)?
|
|
|
|
|
So, what about Cog? When does the voting period end (I thought it had)? Just looking for some updates and clarity.
|
|
|
|
|
COG - It's proof of work.
COG - A Proof of Work digital currency
COG - A Proof of Work digital asset
COG CURRENCY - It's proof of work
etc
|
|
|
|
haha! it's not fer me, its fer me ma! what movie is that from? |
|
|
|
There is this idea that we must choose between settlement network or payment network, this is a false dichotomy, a false choice. Bitcoin can be both of these things and more, they actually reinforce each other in a synergistic fashion. By attempting to put one above the other you are actually breaking both.
Bitcoin is and can be many different things to different people, there are many coders and engineers who think that we can scale Bitcoin, therefore I think that we should, even if Core thinks that we should not, their reasons for not doing so remains ideological and I have a distinctly different vision for Bitcoin which also happens to align closer to the original vision of its founder as well. I am sure that there are many people that did originally sign up for this original vision and do not appreciate this bait and switch.
I appreciate most of the work done by Core but I do not want a technocratic group of engineers and coders to dictate to us what Bitcoin should become and what its economic policy should be, this should be determined by the market itself instead. I rather have the engineers remind us ideologues of what is possible so that we can then pursue our dreams to create a better world. It is not impossible to increase the blocksize limit, so I reject the notion that we must choose between settlement layer or payment network now.
I think we all want the same thing we deffer only on how to get to that promised land. For some the path is clear, larger blocks. For me and others the path we walk of larger and larger blocks with insufficient fees leads to network collapse. If the blocks become larger it implies that there is increased adoption and use of Bitcoin. A high volume of low fee transactions over the long run would actually pay out more for the miners compared to a high volume of low fee transactions. The idea that if we increase the blocksize over time as the technology allows as it improves would lead to the network collapsing is not supported by the facts. If we had a sixty four megabyte blocksize limit for instance with the same fees per transaction payed out today it would already exceed the present block reward. It is not impossible to have blocks this large, in a decade from now it might even seem trivial. It would even take BIP101 eight years to reach this point, and the newly proposed Bitcoin Classic more then twelve years. Most of the other blocksize limit increase proposals are even more conservative then this, which is fine. My point being is that a high volume of low value transactions can pay for the networks security and this would not lead to the network collapsing as you claim, especially as the limit is slowly increased as our technology improves. Your post, which I tend to agree with, raises a related question I have. In a world where the block size is capped at X and demand for block space is greater than X, there are no guarantees a particular transaction broadcast to the network will settle/verify. In that world, a transaction verifies I.F.F. its included in a block, which may be due in large part to the fee paid rather than the order of broadcasting. So, there is uncertainty with these transactions RE: settlement completition and time of settlement. Now also imagine this capped block size world is one where folks think Bitcoin should be a settlement network for high-dollar transactions like houses, land, cars, etc. and not everyday purchases. Consider that often times, these types of big-ticket purchases also involve a title transfer/registration with and of the property purchased, and that title transfers are often based in law going back centuries (just look at any jurisdiction's real property statutes - including statutes on conveyancing and recording; common law; and the UCC on the perfection of security interests). Hint: Time of conveyance/recording is critical to perfecting a property right. So, in this world, where timing is everything, what professional is going to recommend using bitcoin to facilitate the transaction with so much uncertainty? I think everyone interested in the block size debate outcome, whatever position that is, would really benefit from taking a step back and thinking about who the end user is supposed to be and how the Bitcoin protocol is supposed to compliment and work with existing businesses, industries, customs, and laws (its not going to work to just burn everything and start over from nothing). |
|
|
|
How are people deciding exactly (i.e., what factors are in important in choosing a name)?
EDIT: Can we agree that if the name is dogecoindark (which I'm fine with) or shinobi, that doged will remain a tribute coin and tied to another identity? I'm not saying that's bad or anything - I'm just kinda curious as to whether I'm alone in having that assessment.
the coins arent going anywhere, just (possibly) the name. everyones coins would still be fine Yes, of course. I did not mean to imply otherwise, and I apologize if that post comes across that way. To clarify - I interpret the fundamentals and foundations of DOGED to be solid, and this interpretation is the premise underlying my participation here. My question is/was supposed to be ontological and asked in the vein of a self-inquiry about what the DOGED community might want from a name and in an identity. In other words, I'm' talking about philosophy and not about technology or trading.* Practically, the inquiry concerns how to evaluate cosmetics options associated with a chosen identity-building/re-branding strategy. Nonetheless, whatever outcome emerges from the current re-branding inquiry is certainly not a deal breaker for me. For now, I'm just enjoying what could be really a deep discussion and trying to test some ideas. *Dogedarkdev's clarification is fair given that I used the phrase "tied to" which sometimes gets used in a technical and trading sense in digital currency communities. I will try and put an alternative phrase in its replace later. |
|
|
|
|
How are people deciding exactly (i.e., what factors are in important in choosing a name)?
EDIT: Can we agree that if the name is dogecoindark (which I'm fine with) or shinobi, that doged will remain a tribute coin and tied to another identity? I'm not saying that's bad or anything - I'm just kinda curious as to whether I'm alone in having that assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
