Our BRAND NAME is Spreadcoin. What's under the hood is a gasoline engine, also known as masternodes. It's not exactly like other gasoline engines, in fact, it's better in many respects. But it's still a gasoline engine. If Mr. Spread turns the gasoline engine into a flywheel, then let's talk.
I respect your opinion and agree that what spreadcoin uses ATM are masternodes and instantx. It would be wrong to rename those things now. Not unethical, but wrong. A bad move... like in chess when you make a bad move.... you don't know the consequences of what this bad move might have, but you feel it's a bad move. But what is wrong about it? That we are still in testphase, that Mr. Spread himself admits that he was inspired by darkcoin, that he himself still calls his implementations masternodes and instantX for a reason. Therefor it's wrong to rename them ATM. But that doesn't mean that we can't work on creating our own servernodes that deserve their own names. Let's do that. But let's not just put a different color on it and call it something else.... that would be wrong. It would look cheap. |
|
|
|
Our BRAND NAME is Spreadcoin. What's under the hood is a gasoline engine, also known as masternodes. It's not exactly like other gasoline engines, in fact, it's better in many respects. But it's still a gasoline engine. If Mr. Spread turns the gasoline engine into a flywheel, then let's talk.
I respect your opinion and agree that what spreadcoin uses ATM are masternodes and instantx. It would be wrong to rename those things now. Not unethical (that's too strong!), but wrong. A bad move... like in chess when you make a bad move.... you don't know the consequences of what this bad move might have, but you feel it's a bad move. |
|
|
|
100K marketcap with such big plans. Nice
Every coin starts like that. Except fiat coins like ripple etc that just get to "make up" their marketcap.  |
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong.
I think spreadcoins nodes as they are ATM, should still be called masternodes, since they are basically derived from darkcoin, and even use instantx the very same feature that belongs to darkcoin.
But spreadcoins goal is to create its own kind of servernodes, that will do different things in different ways.
At some point the namechange will make obvious sense.
But not now.
So stay tuned.
Gotta make some of that spread man, I want my spread right now man, make something so I can get my spread instantly man. What shall we call it if we can get Spread instantly ?  Anyway I think it is good we are talking about names and the uses that SPR will have. A rose is still a rose by any other name....  Yes exactly. A server is still a server, no matter if you call it a masternode or a spreadnode or whatever. |
|
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong.
I think spreadcoins nodes as they are ATM, should still be called masternodes, since they are basically derived from darkcoin, and even use instantx the very same feature that belongs to darkcoin.
But spreadcoins goal is to create its own kind of servernodes, that will do different things in different ways.
At some point the namechange will make obvious sense.
But not now.
So stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
Proper attribution (especially when it comes to open source attribution) doesn't mean that you need to put the name of the first guy who had that idea on your product...
Well, there is the problem. In my opinion, masternodes are NOT a product. They are a feature from the product, which is SpreadCoin. So while you're looking at naming a product, i'm looking at naming a feature. It makes simply no sense for me to rename a feature, while it makes no sense for you to NOT rename a product. Still, i am unable to see masternodes as a product. The only product i see is "spreadcoin", and everything else are features included in it. Interesting thoughts for sure. This makes me think: when is something a "feature", and when is it something essential for the function of a product? Obviously, things are not called a "feature" when they are essential for the operation of the product. Features are rather what I call "goodies" or "gimmicks". Nice things to have, and they define and shape the product and its value, but they could also be excluded from the product while it would STILL stay operational. Let's make a few examples: If I buy a car, the tires or the engine are not "features"... no sane carproducer would make advertisement that calls the engine a "feature"... But obviously, having Anti-lock-brake-System installed is a nice feature... and so is GPS navigation and airbags. Same thing with computers.... Nobody calls the CPU, RAM or even the keyboard or the screen a "feature" of a computer, since they are so essential for its operation. But you might call the multitouch ability of a screen a "feature", or blue tooth or special extensions like FireWire etc... Now when we apply that to cryptocurrencies..... nobody doubts that a thing like "instantx" or "DarkSend" is a feature. But no sane person would say that the blockchain is a feature, or that a miner is a feature. Because those things are essential parts of ALL cryptocurrencies (we even call currencies that don't have those features FAKE or FIAT currencies for this very reason). Therefor I advocate that ... a masternode is a server is an essential part of a network. A masternode is just another actor, it belongs into the same category as a miner. (more or less) A masternode is not a "feature". It is something essential for the operation of a network. So the conclusion is: A masternode is just a server. Darkcoin doesn't just get to rename an essential part of a technology that has been around for decades and make it its feature and expect everybody to call it the same. A masternode is just a server, but darkcoin decided to make such an essential part of any network a "feature" of its product. All this reminds me a little bit of the apple/samsung patent battle, and who of them gets to own "rounded corners" on all devices worldwide. No sir, you don't get to own such a thing. Since it is an essential part of everyday life, that has been here long before you arrived. |
|
|
|
I still don't know why there is no ChristCoin. You know "in God we trust" that kinda thing. I bet it would go BIG.
I'm sure they are working on it.... but it's probably difficult for them to find good christian mathematicians! |
|
|
|
Are we really having the bit/satoshi argument here.
Refer to it as the industry standard reference. No name change necessary.
I am just happy that we have our original thread back. hahaha. See how such discussions keep us entertained and the trolls away? I love it. Everything we say here is just thinking out loud, to be taken with a grain of salt. Ofcourse. I'll buy that foe a dolla...spit balling is fine. But there is no reason to start implementing a name so that we have to explain everything again. People know what Masternodes are. The Masternodes here provide the same function and people already know what that entails. If anything, refer to them as 'easier Masternodes'. That said, I think that there is no harm in the discussion...I also think that Mr. Spread has the final say. If he continues to use the terminology that he has been using then there it is, perhaps. Of course, there is something to be said about a mildly heated discussion focused on SPR that keeps the trolls at bay...even if it is mildly fallacious...and I loled at the ape analogy. Let's use this as the main selling point when we market SPR in the Bible Belt...  I honestly think that we can only keep the trolls away, if we ourselves start acting a little more erratic than usual. This is the jungle called BCT... let's have some fun. If you wanna let it all hang out, that's the place to do it! |
|
|
|
My dream is that spreadcoin keeps on innovating more and more, until one day what we now call masternode (influenced by darkcoin) has so far deviated from darkcoin that it can't be called masternode anymore.
I have no problem with that and in fact agree 100%. But at present, they are masternodes. I even agree with that! The best proof for that is that Mr. Spread's first action with his version of masternodes was to recreate instantx. So it's obvious that our masternodes are derived from darkcoin masternodes. But I don't think this is a path that we will stay on much longer. I honestly think instantx is a fad that will go away.As I explained in another thread at spreadcointalk, all cryptocoins have the veeeery serious bottleneck problem that the limited block size allows for only a small amount of transactions every minute. Like thousands of times less than what is possible with legacy payments systems like credit cards or paypal. So what good is instantx when only a limited number of transactions can happen every minute anyway? I see much more potentital for spreadcoin to solve such important problems like the transaction bottleneck instead of copying what darkcoin does. That's what made darkcoin successful, right? Solving problems. |
|
|
|
Calling them [whatever] decentralized masternodes won't work either because, make no mistake, Evan Duffield WILL fix the reference node issue at some point and Darkcoin masternodes will be decentralized as well.
They're masternodes.
I don't know why I'm arguing this as Mr. Spread has proven himself to be ethical which is part of the reason I've invested like I have. I have little doubt he'll keep the name the same.
Mr. Spread already has kept the name the same. He always talks about masternodes. I don't think this has any meaning to him at the moment... it's just a name. My dream is that spreadcoin keeps on innovating more and more, until one day what we now call masternode (influenced by darkcoin) has so far deviated from darkcoin that it can't be called masternode anymore. Kinda like what separates humans from apes.... yes, those are our roots... but we are our own species now. Sure, you could insist that humans ARE apes... but at some point it can also be considered an insult to call a human an ape, right? |
|
|
|
Are we really having the bit/satoshi argument here.
Refer to it as the industry standard reference. No name change necessary.
I am just happy that we have our original thread back. hahaha. See how such discussions keep us entertained and the trolls away? I love it. Everything we say here is just thinking out loud, to be taken with a grain of salt. Ofcourse. |
|
|
|
the name Spreadnodes isn't bad at all to me. But we just have to make sure to add the words Decentralized Masternodes next to it on graphics and stuff.
Spreadnodes
- Decentralized Masternodes -
That's it! Best suggestion yet. If you go to wikipedia and look up darkcoin, you will see that their definition of a masternode is: Darksend's mixing is performed by Masternodes, servers operating on a decentralized volunteer network which have the responsibility of signing the transactions. Now what if our future wiki site is saying something like: All those services are performed by Spreadnodes, decentralized masternodes (link to darkcoin) that use a decentralized system of blablabla.... I would be ok with that. Proper attribution (especially when it comes to open source attribution) doesn't mean that you need to put the name of the first guy who had that idea on your product... |
|
|
|
I have tremendous respect for Evan Duffield and what he has done for Darkcoin and cruptocurrency as a whole. It has been unfortunate to see the way the various communities have lacked professionalism, but it's not that surprising. Frustrating, but not surprising.
I've suggested a wide variety of things for Spreadcoin that haven't been done and I'm ok with that; we don't always get our way, nor should we.
But to rename masternodes and InstantX to something else would be very disrespectful and wrong on many levels. I will not be a part of a coin that acts in such a manner. So yes, you can rename them to whatever you want, but I won't be a part of Spreadcoin anymore if you do. That doesn't mean you guys shouldn't. If you feel it's that important to rename them, go for it. I simply can't be a part of a community that I feel would be lacking ethics.
I also have a lot of respect for eduffield, and not just because of darkcoin... But also because of X11, Dark Gravity Wave, and more. Mr. Spread decided to call his hashing algorithm SpreadX11.... so I assume that's also his way of how he pays respect to eduffield. He didn't call it Spreadhash or something like that for a reason. Maybe we can do the same thing with masternodes? Keep the -nodes part of the name, but add Spread- to it, making it spreadnodes. (so people will know where we came from.) It's like what pepsi has done with coca cola. They took -cola and added pepsi... voila: pepsi cola. |
|
|
|
Apple has done a TON of marketing to teach people to say Iphone instead of smartphone. Everyone now calls an Iphone and Iphone. Every other phone has a specific name but is easily called a smartphone. Psychologically speaking they are not even in the same category anymore.
Good point! |
|
|
|
If they work in the same way and perform the same tasks, with only a different implementation, then YES, they should name them masternodes. It makes no sense to rename something that performs the same functions just because you don't like, or compete with, the people who created it. It like apple calling smartphones "intelligent phones" just because blackberry where the ones who coined the term "smartphone".
If I am not mistaken, there were mobile phones with extra features in the 90s called Palms... They could also be considered "smart phones" in hindsight but they chose a terrible name for their product. So, I don't think that the company that coined the phrase "smartphone" is also the first company that actually produced what we consider "smart" phones. What if masternodes is auch a "terrible name" too? |
|
|
|
This is the same as spreadx11. Everyone knows x11 adding spread only makes it obvious that its different. If we call them servernodes people will understand.
My personal favorite is servernodes. It's self-explanatory, and it cuts any ties we have with darkcoin ... I would also be ok with spreadnodes, first because those nodes ARE really spreading stuff around (transactions, etc...) but also because it continues the theme we started with spreadx11... maybe this can be our own tradition of adding the name spread to everything... Anyway... I am just thinking out loud here... but those thoughts must be had.... it's time to find our identity... |
|
|
|
well, it`s then emerging technology SPR is improving upon. Doesn't really matters if it is established or not. Just that SPR is improving it, so why sweep that under the carpet? Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and masternodes is a DRK idea, let's attribute it correctly. Lets render unto SPR what is really SPR's (decentralization and instant transactions with SPR implementation)...
Are we improving it? Or are we rewriting it? DRK can own masternodes, it's their idea, their specific implementation. But they don't have a patent or naming rights for every technology that thinks about using servers as additional actors in a cryptocurrency. So what if another coin comes along that has nothing to do with darkcoin and decides to use servers..... should it call those entities Masternodes out of respect for darkcoin? Ofcourse not! |
|
|
|
Lets stick with "Decentralized Masternodes"
That could be the solution! |
|
|
|
Servernode has the exact same problem of masternodes. Servers are centralization points, so servernode does not fit a decentralized coin either.
And then, why differentiate from DRK? it is established technology SPR is improving upon. "differentiating" from it in name only while keeping the similarities in functionality is just to sweep the dirt under the carpet.
But wait, the whole internet is based on servers. Something that is decentralized is based on centralized entities. That's not a problem, you can built decentralized systems based on centralized entities. And everybody knows what a server is. I don't want Spreadcoin to have similarities in functionality with darkcoin for all eternity! I hope that in the future we will walk more and more our own path, until one day we are practically unrecognizable from what we are today. Or what, you imagine a future where we walk behind darkcoin forever? Not in my dreams! |
|
|
|
It will be a huge mistake if we change the name away from masternode. Block. Blockchain. Masternode. These are terms everyone knows. Should we call the blockchain a Spreadchain while we're at it?
PLEASE do not change the name of a technology everyone already knows. While Mr. Spread rewrote masternode code, the idea behind it is still the same. They're masternodes.
If you change the name you're going to be explaining what a fucking Spreadnode is 400x a day.
We want to differentiate from darkcoin, not bitcoin.  What if I told you that masternode is a horrible name for a cryptocurrency that stands for decentralization? Everybody understands "blockchain", it makes sense, it's a chain of blocks. D'uh. Everybody understands "miner", they are mining for coins like a miner in a goldmine. But masternode? What exactly is so "master" about them? Who are they the master of?  I never understood that. I think if we call our nodes something like ServerNodes then it is much more self-explanatory, right? Servernode has the exact same problem of masternodes. Servers are centralization points, so servernode does not fit a decentralized coin either. And then, why differentiate from DRK? it is established technology SPR is improving upon. "differentiating" from it in name only while keeping the similarities in functionality is just to sweep the dirt under the carpet. It's the first time I hear someone say that DRK is established technology. I will carefully assume that probably BITCOIN is established technology, although it hasn't left beta stage yet and who knows what problems lie ahead. I am just saying.... Spreadcoin isn't Darkcoin. And it would make sense for us to start acting like in any healthy competition, instead of constantly following in darkcoin's wake.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
