My favorites are:

clickz
ion
metarial
vibe
virtual

The unit 'virtuals' or 'metarials' is an abstract or futurist name of the essence of what the owner possesses. Whereas, 'clicks' are more descriptive of a good or service a user would associate with the value of these units (and other definition means synergy). The term 'ions' perhaps connotes a unit of fuel for virtual activity. The unit 'vibes' is an abstract good or energy in social networking, so it a more felt form of a fuel for virtual interaction.

The shorter spelling 'clix' as well 'vibe' are competitive with 'ion' in brevity.

The logo for 'click' is likely a . The logo for 'virtual' would be something like or which is artwork I created in 2002. The logo for 'metarial' would signify recursion or self-referential composition/decomposition . Vibe logo might incorporate the concept of waves or resonance .

I am still considering 'ion' as well. Perhaps people can learn to think of it as the "electric charge" (fuel) they need to do actions in virtual reality. The logo would probably be a lighting bolt and/or positively charge ions floating in a cloud . If 'ion' wins out, I won't be upset. I just want to make sure all perspectives have been weighed by voters. Please read the thread before voting.

i·on·o·sphere
īˈänəˌsfi(ə)r/Submit
noun
the layer of the earth's atmosphere that contains a high concentration of ions and free electrons and is able to reflect radio waves. It lies above the mesosphere and extends from about 50 to 600 miles (80 to 1,000 km) above the earth's surface.

Remember even if we don't choose 'ion' as the name, we can use 'ions' as the smallest unit instead of satoshis.

---

Here are various logos in I designed from 1999 - 2002:

I am thinking we need to invent a word for interacting with computers, or the synergy we gain from leverage information technology. Clicking is one of the main actions we do in this more general process. As we move beyond clicking for interfacing with computers, seems we will need a more general term. Any suggestions?

copute
cyberact
cybergize
cybin
cyborgate
digitize
metarealize
quantification
transinate
transpute
virtualize

I had liked the name virtual, but no domains are available, yet virtuals and virtualcash are available in numerous tlds.

Any way from that I thought of another abstract name:

metarial or metareal

Material about material, i.e. the virtual data world. But it is not really catchy. Not many people would get it initially. Very brandable long-term.

An abstract name along that line of thinking would be:

meta

Things about things, block chains about block chains, programs about programs, or values about values which is I guess what money is. Seems too abstract though.

I forgot to say thank you to everyone that participated in this thread. I am grateful for the interaction which spawned the clickz name idea. And I do mean everyone that posted and voted in thread, excluding no one.



Thanks. I prefer clickz because it is more clearly associated with clicks, and avoiding the attrition of confusion is paramount. Although clix is shorter, the spelling might not be as memorable as click+z. Once you start butchering click, then many spellings arise such as clics, klix, klics, klicks, klickz, etc.. So I thought it was better to add z to non-butchered click, so it is click and instead of s then a z, but also I don't really mind if people say "pay me 5 clicks" instead of "pay me 5 clickz" because they are still using the same software and protocol. However, if they say the former and mean instead "pay me 5 clix", although they might be using the same software and protocol as "clix", the is also chance they are using "clics, klix, klics, klicks, klickz" protocol instead. In short or more quantitatively, I prefer the choice with the minimum Levenshtein distance from clicks.

However, I do want to guard against the confusion of copycoins, thus I have registered the following domains due to your feedback:

clickzit.net	($12)
clix.cash	($25)
clix.space	($2)

So we can give the users the option of using 'clickz', 'clix', or 'clickzits" for the largest units of the coin (ion is proposed as the smallest unit), and let the community preference take hold. This should hopefully demotivate copycoins from abusing our name. Also just in case the market prefers 'clix' (in case my logic above on the choice is overpowered by the collective market wisdom).

On 'zing', I like it for the sound, short spelling (although it could be misspelled 'xing'), and association with swiftness and energy, but I think in hindsight that it lacks the target market focus of clickz. And it looks like a rip-off from Microsoft's Bing search engine. I remain open-minded however. My perspective could be colored by my own subjectivity, so I allow time to widen my experience and eyes before becoming totally firm on clickz.


It appears to me to the best. I will be surprised if better name is found for the mass adoption market of microtransactions and block chain scaling. Many investors think in terms of 'picocoin' or 'picopay' but users don't think of microtransaction as small money but rather about features they can access (the monetary exchange should be so small they don't have to think about it and approve each occurrence but instead just click and go), synergies they can obtain, quality upgrades to content, etc.. Degrading all those wonderful qualities by characterizing money as small is a "wtf r they thinking" moment for me. I think I have some marketing skills, but always so do a lot of you and collectively you have more wisdom than I do (so it is matter of instigating this interactive creative process) because there are no bad ideas (from crap ideas spawn winning ideas).

Btw, I am offering some unsolicited brainstorming for the name of Boolberry. I think they are not going to change the name and that may be the best decision. But any way, here are my ideas:

Blurberry
Mixberry
Peekabool
Entangle
Shuffle
Haystack
Entropy (irreversible)
Matrix
Mingle
Obfuscate
Mixalot
Fungible / Fungibit
Blur / Blurbit
Chrochet
Delink
Unchain

Edit: I didn't register clix.one nor clickz.one, which are both available. Seems we don't want the users to think they will only be able to click once or connote restriction of choices.

I argue the powers-that-be do hope you are so willfully ignorant of the law, so they can entrap you. I reviewed the EU legislation and they are very busy advancing the securities law and the definitions are sufficiently broad that they could start to interpret securities law very similar to USA courts do in some EU court that gains powers as the EU is federalized (reducing national sovereignty) as this sovereign debt smashup crisis comes crashing down 2016 - 2018. The powers-that-be appear to have planned it out very well to trap you Europeans who boast to yourselves how you don't have to pay taxes on income abroad and yet the powers-that-be are busy formulating a G20 coordination on unified taxing so that no one escapes paying taxes and regulation. The global economic collapse is the way they will get all the nations to accede to this coordination to hunt down all capital.

You are just buying a little time before your demise.

If you review the thread I linked to, which has more details on what the legislation and case law has stated, I think the conclusion is that the determination of whether an implicit "investment contract" has been formed is tied into whether there are those who are selling (and/or offering for sale, including reselling) shares in a "common enterprise" wherein they are "promoting the reasonable expectation of profits/gains" and another condemning characteristic is when those who have those reasonable expectations, are depending on the efforts and/or promotion of those aforementioned promoters or trusted controllers of the common enterprise. So it appears that when the developers of the coin have created a community promotion wherein there is a reasonable expectation of profits backed by the efforts and promotion of those developers who are in control of the common enterprise, then a security (dependency on the developers to deliver gains) has been formed and thus these shares need to be registered and regulated under the law. IANAL, but that is my interpretation.

I have proposed that no security would be created if the developer of a crypto-token protocol and implementing software instead does a crowdsale (and/or just launches with distribution via mining debasement) where it is made very clear in the pronouncements and actions of the developer that the tokens created by this protocol and software are being offered to users of the tokens for using the protocol network, and disclaims prominently and profusely that no one obtaining these tokens should have any expectations of future gains based on any exchange value. The developer should not be targeting his marketing (such as forum activities, naming, etc) to individual public investors and rather to selling his software and protocol to users, for example via a crowdfunding to gain funding to complete or repay loans he incurred to do the programming. He should not make public announcements of the available of tokens to  investors. One way perhaps to make this very clear, is to limit the maximum size that any one person can donate at the crowdfunding to perhaps $500 or what ever would be considered too small to be a reasonable worthwhile investment in the first world. In other words, there are many users of a new technology (even include other developers who can work on ecosystem projects) who have an interest in using the real world product (thus they need some tokens to use it) who have an interest in its success and in interacting with the product, that have nothing to do with a reasonable expectation of profits on those tokens. Whereas if you are constantly trolling in these forums acting as if you want to funnel all the speculators to your coin, then ostensibly you are not targeting usership but rather speculation and thus arguably (and implicitly) promoting a security.

One issue I am still trying to work out is how accepting placements from angel investors would mesh with the crowdfunding direction for funding programming of software and protocols for users?

Apparently there are several types of exceptions to requirements to register securities in the USA, which seem to revolve around accredited and/or sophiscated investors:

http://thismatter.com/money/stocks/exempt-securities.htm

These all appear to place restrictions on when the shares of the angel investors can be sold and also require subsequent registration. Apparently sales to non-USA angel investors is a complete exception to all requirements (but may trigger requirements in the non-USA angel investor's domicile or tax jurisdiction).  What is worrisome is that such may trigger all shares (even those sold to users and not investors) to be classified as security especially if these shares are divisible and fungible (become mixed up) as is the case for crypto-currencies.

Thus it appears one would be best pay their angel investors back in cash (with any agreed interest rate or equation of return), classifying these as loans are investments in the programmer, and not in the final protocol and software which is sold and provided to users, not investors. Angel investors who wanted to convert this cash to shares would have to do so on some open exchange market (and again with disclaimers from the developer in force that no reasonable expectations of gains should be expected and shares should be obtained for use and not for investment and if they choose to ignore that, there is nothing the developer can do to prevent markets from forming). This has been a very important epiphany for me.

I hope the use of the term 'your' is figurative and not literal. I am not, so it doesn't apply to me. I am embarking on an open source project for users, and I hope to get some user crowdfunded funding at some point (when there is a product ready, not now at vaporware). And I have no desire to continue to post in various threads for other altcoins nor promoting to investors. I want to go create actual software that works and does something real. I have been posting a bit in the other block chain scaling coin threads, just to understand their features and see if any technical collaboration is possible. But at some point if I don't go quiet, then you will know there isn't any software coming from me, because as you said up thread, programmers can't program and write in forums at the same time.



Oic. Great. I am thinking more of building platforms for developers than building specific instances and competing with the developers. To scale fast, build APIs and let others build out the specific cases of apps. I might want to build some of my own apps too, but that is tangential to what I think the rapid scaling strategy should be. Me building an app can be a form of activity applicable to designing/debugging/refining/demonstrating an API the app is built on.


I think it is a law of supply and demand. For as long as there is a supply of investors (the demand) eager to be duped or chase pumps, then there will be a demand for an altcoin forum. Perhaps if you have several strong racehorses in the altcoin sphere, the investors all pick a few and stop looking for 2 cent X11/DonaldDuckGravityWell copycoins. Perhaps for as long as Bitcoin fever is pulling in more new "I found God" new adopters, then perhaps it never ceases. Maybe there is a finite limit to the technophile-n00b-gambler demographic. Frankly I really have no idea, I don't think about things like that much. I am thinking about how to spread software to users, be funded, and who knows maybe win the lotto. I have always been interested to challenge myself to see how many users I can get to use my creations. I am trying to beat my 335,000 verified websites with Coolpage in 2001. Internet is 10x larger, so thus my minimum goal is 3+ million real users (not just one-transaction wonders who've since abandoned it). Who knows if I can achieve that (huge doubt at this point with only vaporware). Bitcoin isn't even that large now.

And no promise from me that goal will be achieved. But thanks for the comment. And heck why not try for the heck of it? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I'd like to use such a currency myself. I am creating as much to be a user myself as other motivations I have.

In April, I created a dating site and then I couldn't monetize the "per message" sends. So I shut the site down because my model didn't work well with credit cards (need to gradually hook the users into paying by trialing with minimal outlay and I could afford the nor risk the $10,000+ to fund the site with free trialing to reach the necessary economy-of-scale to where the credit card model would work). Also I wanted a PPV model (guys paying the gals, or actually paying member paying non-paying member of any gender or sexual orientation juxtaposition) because it made more sense for what I was trying to do that was unique. But it wasn't going to work that these users weren't going to dump a $25 credit card funded funding to their balance on my site, for such a new and unknown site. Users have become much more adverse to paying for anything, since they can usually find something for free, so they need to see the quality is worth the payment and micropayments makes it possible to deliver much higher quality but users need to see this in action, you can't make it work in a credit card model. There are many other scenarios. This is a deep, deep untapped market in my opinion.

"Build it and they will come" doesn't work. If you really want to make it fly, the block chain protocol is not enough, have to also build out the ecosystem infrastructure and motivate the use cases, e.g. an easier way for sites to integrate micropayments, some social media apps that use micropayments, maybe a blogging app or site that does, etc.. For example, my dating site code is still sitting there, ready to relaunch (also some of that code can be re-deployable for other types of sites). But of course it requires many developers getting interested in an ecosystem to gain momentum. But leading the way can sometimes kickstart that there is a realization based on some initial success. Success tends to cascade from an initial small example or spark, e.g. the 10,000 BTC for a pizza was the defining moment where people realized you could actually use Bitcoin.

Sometimes I wonder if you are blind or if you just refuse to let any one have the last word when they've already refuted your point before you write it. I wrote the younger generation won't dominate "for another generation or so. A decade is more than enough time". See it above?

Tangentially, we both mean the very youngest, because the 20-somethings all are very familiar with the desktops, at least what I've seen in Asia (not just Philippines but also when I was in Hong Kong). It is only in the past few years that I saw people starting to use tablets as a primarily computer and their kids exposed to that. And even then most of them have a desktop in the home and you know kids are very curious. If they've seen a mouse, then they've used it. You can't have something in the house and the kids don't get demand "Daddy can I click the mouse". Tablet only homes are probably still not the majority.


Those are much more vertical market than clicking. Clicking is reasonably ubiquitous (and it includes swiping, pressing, and touching because they can all involve a microtransaction monetization model). Not as ubiquitous as the concept of fungible money, but you can't sell money to users who already have the money they trust and want. Really with Bitcoin we are selling money only to ideologues, scammers, internet gamblers, and others who have some reason to hate regular money. Bitcoin's ecosystem is diversifying into smart contracts and other features that more people might need (but not proven yet). Afaics with Monero you are not even selling money to anyone (or very few such as CryptoKingdom and kudos to rpietila on that), but rather predominately selling a vision of an open source marathon to (IMO naive) investors (who IMO seem to not be able to calculate probabilities very astutely...I could expound on that but prefer not to end up in a long back and forth on that since it is pretty much off topic here). You could argue the probabilities are also risky on any altcoin and then I would go into relative market cap and relative time on the market without significant market adoption, etc.. Any way no need to go there, the point is nobody has really cracked the marketing adoption yet which is also what you seem to be saying too.


I wasn't referring to Bitcoin. I was specifically referring to altcoin pumps. I don't know if any of them get any play outside of BTT and Reddit. I am interested to know of their other marketing avenues.

I don't know where the altcoin community could graduate to that wouldn't have "trolling, scams, and other noise", lol.

My prior post today is to make it clear that "promoting" is one of the modes of making something a security. The generative essence point you continue to err on is that "the nature of the underlying security" is defined by the actions of the entity that would be culpable for registering them. The economic case is made by this definition of what a security is in terms of a backing (securing) the reasonable expectation of future gains. You can't separate the two. You can't have the chicken without the egg, nor vice versa.


Again you continue to conflate separate concerns. "plain and innate desire for attention and self-promotion" is not the defining characteristic for making the "investment contract" which causes a sale to be an "investment security". Observe the following quoted example (of myself) as a clear exception and thus proof of your error when you ASS-U-ME I would self-promote to investors rather than promote and sell my software and protocol to users that desire to have a token based representation of clicks on the internet, a cool new paradigm for users (not for investors!). Self-promotion is also a way of getting users interested in playing the game I am creating, and thus buying a copy of it. And why can't I crowdfund a virtual game with tokens making it clear the sale is for users (users need tokens to play the game) and not for anyone who expects any investment contract. Perhaps you forgot this game is about exchanging the tokens for actions, and if investors are choosing to misuse the game to exchange tokens for fiat (which is a regulated activity!) the fact of life is I can't control how people abuse software for non-intended usage. Sorry if it disappoints you that I don't need an attorney and underwriter broker leeches to for the simple benign and humble act of creating and selling my programming labor to users of the software I create. This has been an activity I have been doing my entire life. Your condescending attitude about my desire to not have to consult with attorney for the simple act of selling software to users, sounds like you are extortionist trying to scare or belittle me into paying for services or advice I may not need.

---

Erik Vorhees was allegedly or ostensibly involved in a common enterprise making representations of expected profits to investors.

If I am selling software to users with clear disclaimers that the product is like a virtual game with no expectations of future gains promised and that the software is designed for users of this game and not for investors, then whether the tokens have exchange gains is irrelevant. No one gets prosecuted for making a game where the score doesn't always go higher for every user. What are you smoking that is causing you to conflate orthogonal cases and continue to cite case law to me that is inapplicable?

I am assuming you don't like a name with 'z' in it? Any particular reason?

It seems maybe I lost your interest up thread where I disagreed with narrowing the target market of the protocol and naming scope to NFC payments?

Does it really matter if users accidentally misspell it 'clicks' or 'clickz' (or 'fucks' hehe), if they are using the same protocol when doing it.

Note it is actually quite desirable to present this project of as "less serious" to investors (although I am very serious about targeting large markets with my software) and solely targeted towards users so that I can't be accused of promoting some investment security. I am trying to create software that targets large markets, because I want to use the software. I am not targeting investors. I only want to be funded for my efforts to create this user software (not investment focus) because I do have bills to pay. And there are other users who may also want this software and protocol and want to crowdfund me to create so they can use the software and protocol too. Any expectation of gains in exchange value to fiat or whatever is your own to make and I offer no such representations and I will disclaim profusely that these tokens are for investors. These clickz tokens are targeted for users of the software and protocol. If I do a crowdfunding, it will be explained clearly that these tokens are for users and no gains in exchange value should be expected.

I have tried to clarify what I think the USA law says a security is:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1218269.msg12795383#msg12795383

Can anyone tell me after that post why Monero is not an unregistered investment security under USA law?

Apologies took me too long to get back to this thread, because I was sidetracked.

Disclaimer: I am not attorney and these are just my opinions backed by the research I will cite. Consult your own professional attorney for legal advice.

Before I read 2112's reply and make any further discussions directed to him, I want to first attempt to clarify my stance.

1. Anyone issuing or even reselling an unregistered security to a USA person is criminally culpable under the law. This means if you (regardless of your international location and citizenship) are correct in claiming that Bitcoin is an "investment security" and since Bitcoins are not registered with SEC, then you could go to jail or be fined for exchanging your Bitcoins (in the purchase of goods or services or on an exchange)! I believe Bitcoin is not an investment security, so it is very important we clarify what is and what is not an investment security under the USA law (and internationally as well):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Act_of_1933#Registration_process



2. In the USA, a 'security' is defined to be one of the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_%28finance%29#Notes


Since crypto-currency isn't typically any of the listed items quoted above (note "preorganization certificate or subscription" requires an organization or business thus doesn't normally apply, and "transferable share" implies the share in some organization or business), then instead—or in the case of an "investment contract"—the Howey case applies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_%28finance%29#Regulation


http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/328/293.html



3. Per they SEC vs. Howey test above, any crypto-coin that has an entity which is selling or offering to sell those digital tokens (even if they mined them) and buyers of those tokens believe they have a reasonable expectation of future profits "solely" (or I assume even primarily) due to the efforts (in the common enterprise) of the entity which is making representations (i.e. promotions or other actions) that caused buyers to believe this, then that crypto-coin is an investment security and the said entity is culpable under the securities act. In other words, the said entity is acting as a security (i.e. a backing) for the expectation of future gain, as opposed to some tokens where the investors were not relying on the efforts of any said entity to drive future profits. If the investors are not basing their expectation of future profits on the representations or efforts (in the common enterprise) of any entity which is selling or offering to sell the tokens, then there is no backing and no security.


4. Since I have heard numerous times from Monero investors that Monero has the best chance to increase in value because of its impressive development team (even been suggested to me that I should not create my own crypto-token software and protocol because a solo developer can't match the effort of Monero's development team), since those development team members admitted they have mined or purchased Monero tokens which they sometimes sell or offer to the investors of Monero, then someone please explain to me why Monero is not an unregistered investment security and why those development teams are not culpable under the USA law? Instead of Monero developers putting out disclaimers about the expectations of investors on their efforts, they instead go into every altcoin thread promoting their own coin and thus implicitly reinforcing the view that their efforts in doing these actions are essential in maintaining the promotion of Monero as having the best investment future. Another distinction for Monero is that their coin is unfinished and thus by definition the investors are depending on the developers efforts in the common enterprise. I thus argue Monero is an "investment security" because there is an implied "investment contract" between the developers controlling Monero and the investors. One could even add the argument that ostensibly they may have added anonymity so the selling of their shares would be untraceable (not that I am supporting pressing that additional argument but just presenting it as an argument one might make).


5. In the case of Bitcoin, afaik (at least since 2013) there has always been a disclaimer on bitcoin.org about expectations. It appears to me that the Bitcoin core development team is not promoting and making representations. Although I think most investors think the Bitcoin development team is important, they do not base their expectations of future profits on the Bitcoin development team, but rather they think Bitcoin has an inevitable path regardless of the efforts of the Bitcoin development team, i.e. that the team could be replaced if necessary because Bitcoin is already a phenomenon that is larger than the Bitcoin development team. I thus argue Bitcoin is no "investment security" because there is no implied "investment contract" between any entity controlling Bitcoin and the investors.

+1 for entirely missing the point of the poll and thread.

Thus the entire poll is may be meaningless, because I think everyone is highly confused as to what an investment security is under the law.

Agreed. Best to you. Hopefully my feedback helped in some small way.

Interesting suggestion. Thanks.

Okay let the idea for collaboration die on the vine. Neither of us need more drama to slow us down.

I was hoping you (Come-from-Beyond) were the only person I had to coordinate with. My guess is "David" is more of the marketing guy. Too many different personalities to harmonize with while we are trying to rush development, thus sounds like a potential recipe for disaster.

Best.

Since I added the clickz name choice, I think there has been 1 additional vote for ion and one person commented in the thread he would vote for clickz, so when he didn't vote, I voted for clickz (with my one vote).

I want to speak to people who think ion is a better name than clickz. Why?

Who are we creating this altcoin for? As a pump & dump (targeting only the readers of this forum and Reddit) for starry-eyed, crypto-nerd investors who think ions are so "ray gun" cool? Or as a serious attempt to go spread microtransactions to a billion users on the internet?

Ion means nothing to your sister, mother, and your grandma. Go ask them. Feedback to me your market canvassing results.

For the men you ask (who don't read this forum), ask them what type of internet services, function, or product an ion would connote for them. I doubt any of them will say money, microtransactions, social networking, or any answer related to any of our target markets.

All I see is you attacking them over the future size of IoT projections. You made your point in the first post, yet you repeat the same point over and over so that their marketing guy can't get the last word. Readers can read your first point. Instead it comes across as you trying to control everyone's marketing. They are just getting started and hopefully they will get some professional help on the marketing.

I didn't see you make any posts in the thread about the actual technology. (perhaps I missed them?)


Smooth you will not be able to stop dumb users from being dumb as goat shit. I had a Dash user tell me to go to hell in a private message yesterday when I explained the fact that if the ROI for masternodes is exceeding the growth of the money supply and the instanamine was 50% of the money supply at the time masternodes were introduced, then mathematically the instaminers own more than 50% of the coin, much more and growing as a percentage. You can't teach dolts basic math.

As for that IoT hype, I ignored it as other astute observers do, so we don't need to read upteen posts from you fighting with their marketer in their thread. The first post was sufficient. You belabor the point and for what benefit? It only ends up making people dislike you. Obstructionists are not as loved as helpers and builders.


I was reading it and after a few posts I just had to stop.


Agree CfB seems very level-headed. Why are you fighting with "retards" (he just seems overzealous to me and not retarded). That should be below your pay grade. I am trying to learn that too.


As you know I often jot down quickly the general gist and then proof-read my posts and edit. You will find my edited post. You are very quick to ponce on my post. I didn't know you would reply within 3 minutes.

My point is simply that I'd rather not write about your personality defects, but if you are attacking mine then I am forced to clarify that we are all just human and why can't we all just respect each other.

You and I have a philosophical challenge ongoing as to whether any direct funding can be obtained from a serious open source crypto project. Fine. So let's let the free market tell us the final answer. Attacking me will just end up reducing the objectivity of the free market test because then I can argue that you manipulated the result. How about let the free market decide.


We still click on the smart phone. Aliasing it as 'pressing' won't distinguish it from 'clicking' for another generation or so. A decade is more than enough time.

Rather I think clicking is tied to everything we typical users do with computers (not just web browsing) except for other rarer forms of I/O such a speech. Also "click" has another meaning which means to "get along well", e.g. you and I don't always click. That is a very social meaning, but it also applies to having programmable block chain applications (or just preset opcodes and chain assets) clicking (syncing and getting along well) with each other. Clicking implies working well together.

My argument is that most users of the internet don't comprehend that they have need for money on the internet other than the forms they already have (credit cards, paypal). So to position an altcoin as money is useless from their perspective. I argue that instead you need to position the goods involved to some goods they value already, which I assert is navigating cyberspace (including apps not just web) and social networking ("getting along well"). So clicking (the action) and clicking (the getting along well synergy) reinforce each other, because you do one to get the other and vice versa.

When later these clickz are monetized and the users start obtaining new features (such a new types of sites that weren't before economic and new ways to earn an income, etc) with clickz, then they will see clickz as the money and not dollars and pesos, i.e clickz will be their unit-of-account, not fiat, because their use case is clicking.

Altcoin developers appear to have nearly 0 marketing experience/skills unless it is just selling hype to dumb investors (must be a low-hanging fruit optimization phenomenon).

An important insight I made on Iota's thread today:


Smooth entirely missed the point of Iota's revolutionary technology (and its broader implications for block chain perfect) while he was too busy trying to trash their thread over the pedantic argument of the future size of the Internet-of-Things market.

Smooth is smart and does challenge one to be very detailed (which is a good thing), but some times this causes too much pedantic noise and bury the more important broader perspective. I respect and appreciate his skills, but as for working together we've both experienced too many instances where we argue constantly which is a drag on my collaborative enthusiasm/spirit (maybe great things are created by two guys who argue every point to death, but it is very different the style of working relationships I've ever had, so I will just decline and accept that I lose his astute peer review). (Note I take input even from those who are attacking me and I did read carefully smooth's point about names, especially his comment about ethereal, which I also had thought but the way he emphasized it made it clear in mind at key moment in my creative brain storming. All feedback does get turned into a positive)

Any way, if he doesn't criticize me, I won't have a need to clarify in return. I just hope readers will understand the Monero developers are not necessarily the supreme developers (with all the rest of us worthless, unless we join their effort). They are good and they also have a capable cryptographer. And they have the model of open source and any one can contribute and potentially a very large reservoir of talent contributing. But they are not God nor should they have the only serious altcoin project. Others will also produce great work. Let the free market work. Competition will bring the best for the users. We don't need all the developers crammed into one groupthink altcoin project. We need competing creativity.

Note smooth and I had been discussing Lightning Networks in private this past week. It is not like he and I never spoke. I have valued hashing through designs and other issues such as the correct way to structure altcoin distribution and fund raising. So it is all just sort of strange for me. I think perhaps I hit a nerve because I disagreed with smooth (in private and then wrote my summary in this thread without mentioning him) about the viability of doing an ICO and then transitioning to open source. Any way, I just don't know how to interact with that community. I feel I must walk on egg shells. So I will just stay away from them I guess. No hard feelings.