Bitcoin's Bad Wrap... It may be just the wording...

[Stratobitz]

 

Where did the word "Cryptocurrency" even come from?

I may be biased, coming from a background in marketing, advertising, and media development; but I think part of "Bitcoin's", mass adoption resistance dilemma-- as well as all other "Crypto-currencies", is the fact that the community and it's user base; refer to these coins, or tokens, as: 'Crypto-currencies'; or A 'Crypto-currency'.

To be matter of fact, I think it's easy to assume most of us here would like to see wider adoption of Bitcoin and other digital currencies. Wider adoption would increase demand, of a limited supply of coins. As demand increase, and supply limited, both coins in current circulation and the fact that only a limited and decaying number of coins will be generated moving forward; would cause the value to rise. It would be a simple supply vs demand outcome.

While I've been a believer in Bitcoin since I first got involved in this Wild Crypto West back in 2013; there were times I had my doubts Bitcoin would be able to hold it's ground. It received a tremendous amount of negative press, (and continues to take it's fair share), and the press was and still is nearly entirely biased against it's very existence- rarely reporting on all time highs, or achievements and milestones, rather, how "Crypto-currencies and Bitcoins" are the cause and source of funding for of all of the worlds problems.

Purchasing Drugs, Funding Terrorism, I need not go on never has involved cash of course, at least according to recent media reports. And so I wonder has the media has done any research as far as how much of an economic share of the overall trade volume, or currency exchange for the purchasing of illicit drugs, or engagement in other illegal activities is? This of course compared to say; the use of Cash. Or Bank Wire.

I doubt there are any accurate statistics. But I have a feeling the crypto-currency counterpart of sending money anonymously online to buy drugs or fund terrorism is a rather thin slice of the "purchasing illegal substances" pie. Or even moreso, funding terrorism, Because; let's face it- there aren't a whole lot of Bitcoin ATMs in the hills of Afghanistan where they can easilly convert those tokens to spendable cash.

Years ago the media slammed drugs themselves, and drug users, as supporting terrorist funding. That these radical groups were in fact cultivating drugs to raise money for their causes. And I am sure they were, and still are.

But all that aside. My point is; I believe that the word Crypto, simply has a negative inference that it carries along with it.

It simply sounds... nefarious.

If CryptoKnight was a Marvel Character he would certainly be a Villain would he not?  One who hides in the shadows, and can move about undetected planning his next evil attack.

While not linguistically related; Crypto to me also sounds a bit burial... as in an underground cemetery hidden beneath a castle where bodies lie in wait. It sounds grim.

Now consider this; Bitcoin, along with it's unknown creator, or creators; Satoshi Nakamoto; never once uses the word "crypto-currency" in his Bitcoin Whitepaper, instead he details out this new payment method as a "Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System".

References to other Works at the end of the Document aside; the use of the term "crypto" appears only once; in the last paragraph of the first page:
 

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third  party.    Transactions  that  are  computationally  impractical  to   reverse   would  protect  sellers
from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.

That single instance is the only time Nakamoto uses the word in an unrelated form.

Nakamoto reinforces that Bitcoin is an "Electronic Payment System".   The Bitcoin itself is defined as an "Electronic Coin".  Repeatedly he uses terms like "Electronic Payments", with payments being "Digitally Signed".

Even in Section 10:  Privacy:     Nakamoto never once uses the word term crypto in conjunction with another term or noun. He rather outlines his model for privacy in terms of Public Keys, Private Keys, a person's Identity, and Trusted Third Parties.

I think any marketing expert would likely agree that an "Electronic Payment System" or a "Digital Currency" is far more marketable, and likely would be more widely accepted. And  more importantly the use of a less "secretive" term; would likely lead to an increased and faster adoption rate.  

To the neophyte who knows nothing about blockchain technologies and what they could potentially offer the global economic system, or in fact reshape it for the better of society; 'Crypto' may sound a bit untrustworthy. As if it in and of itself, has something to hide.

And that is something most people don't want to admit to. That they have skeletons in the closet.

That they need to adopt, have, and utilize a payment system that offers anonymity. That they support it... because they need their activities, where they spend their money, and what they spend it on, to be forever hidden in the shadows of the crypto-graphic world. It would raise eyebrows... no doubt.

Perhaps it's time we start to think about how the word 'Crypto-currency' sounds, from a marketing and mass adoption standpoint; in comparison to what Nakamoto had himself originally proposed:

An Electronic Cash System.

Or perhaps A Digital Currency System.

Strato
3/1/2018
 
 

[Hydrogen]

I may be biased, coming from a background in marketing, advertising, and media development; but I think part of "Bitcoin's", mass adoption resistance dilemma-- as well as all other "Crypto-currencies", is the fact that the community and it's user base; refer to these coins, or tokens, as: 'Crypto-currencies'; or A 'Crypto-currency'.

Even in Section 10:  Privacy:     Nakamoto never once uses the word term crypto in conjunction with another term or noun. He rather outlines his model for privacy in terms of Public Keys, Private Keys, a person's Identity, and Trusted Third Parties.

I think any marketing expert would likely agree that an "Electronic Payment System" or a "Digital Currency" is far more marketable, and likely would be more widely accepted. And  more importantly the use of a less "secretive" term; would likely lead to an increased and faster adoption rate.  

To the neophyte who knows nothing about blockchain technologies and what they could potentially offer the global economic system, or in fact reshape it for the better of society; 'Crypto' may sound a bit untrustworthy. As if it in and of itself, has something to hide.

And that is something most people don't want to admit to. That they have skeletons in the closet.

Interesting and thought provoking post, merited.  

The cute, lovable, huggable Linux penguin could provide contrast in terms of how crypto currencies could be rebranded and marketed differently to have a more friendly mascot and public image. The example of linux could also be evidence that even if everything about bitcoin were defined by a cute penguin mascot it wouldn't gain much marketshare or penetrate further into the public consciousness.

Any move bitcoin or crypto currencies made could easily be drowned out by the media's claims of it being a safe haven for drug users, criminals, money launderers and terrorists. There may not be a high enough signal to noise ratio for bitcoin or crypto to have a voice of its own, or even an image of its own. Virtually everything people hear about them will be determined by the media and it will represent a lion's share of influence in terms of what public opinion on bitcoin and crypto currencies are.

[Stratobitz]

I may be biased, coming from a background in marketing, advertising, and media development; but I think part of "Bitcoin's", mass adoption resistance dilemma-- as well as all other "Crypto-currencies", is the fact that the community and it's user base; refer to these coins, or tokens, as: 'Crypto-currencies'; or A 'Crypto-currency'.

Even in Section 10:  Privacy:     Nakamoto never once uses the word term crypto in conjunction with another term or noun. He rather outlines his model for privacy in terms of Public Keys, Private Keys, a person's Identity, and Trusted Third Parties.

I think any marketing expert would likely agree that an "Electronic Payment System" or a "Digital Currency" is far more marketable, and likely would be more widely accepted. And  more importantly the use of a less "secretive" term; would likely lead to an increased and faster adoption rate.  

To the neophyte who knows nothing about blockchain technologies and what they could potentially offer the global economic system, or in fact reshape it for the better of society; 'Crypto' may sound a bit untrustworthy. As if it in and of itself, has something to hide.

And that is something most people don't want to admit to. That they have skeletons in the closet.

Interesting and thought provoking post, merited.  

The cute, lovable, huggable Linux penguin could provide contrast in terms of how crypto currencies could be rebranded and marketed differently to have a more friendly mascot and public image. The example of linux could also be evidence that even if everything about bitcoin were defined by a cute penguin mascot it wouldn't gain much marketshare or penetrate further into the public consciousness.

Any move bitcoin or crypto currencies made could easily be drowned out by the media's claims of it being a safe haven for drug users, criminals, money launderers and terrorists. There may not be a high enough signal to noise ratio for bitcoin or crypto to have a voice of its own, or even an image of its own. Virtually everything people hear about them will be determined by the media and it will represent a lion's share of influence in terms of what public opinion on bitcoin and crypto currencies are.

I completely agree. And the sad truth is that the media's negative bias is in large part influenced by the advertising dollars the major news networks generate from the Advertising Slots and Inserts which, just so happen to be be, in large part- financial institutions. Banks make up a huge portion of their overall advertising revenue. Specifically on the networks which cater to financial news, such as MSNBC, Bloomberg, and so on. The News are not about to alienate themselves from a revenue stream which likely pays for their entire operating costs alone- all other advertisers aside.

The entire banking system is understandably 100% against Bitcoin; as the very intent of Bitcoin is to remove the man in the middle "Trusted Party" to offer people the "choice" for a Peer to Peer Electronic Payment System.

PayPal, which handles enormous volume for Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and Discover, along with all of the major Banks, which all offer Visa/MC Debit/Credit Card Options see no place for that in the marketplace.

Which is why rather the news reporting agencies bias; which is highly negative; in many ways compromises the editorial integrity of the news networks themselves. The Integrity of their stories, is something they push heavily as a main component of their branding. Fair and Balanced, News You Can Trust, CNN, The Worlds Most Trusted News Network.

Which is why; I can't recall ever seeing any real stories on Bitcoin's rise. The news completely ignored the surge, but covered the crash. They report on the fact that the Darknet Marketplaces; which likely constitute a minuscule amount of the overall global drug trade; is a haven for criminals using this new "CryptoCurrency".

I'm curious... Who Even Coined the Term  "CRYPTOCURRENCY".  

The Nakamoto Whitepaper doesn't use that term. He mentions only once that a cryptographic proof would be used in place of the trusted third party (to prevent double spending/counterfeiting).

But somewhere along the line someone must have coined that term; as I doubt it was used prior to the Nakamoto Whitepaper; which clearly called the proof an "Electronic Payment System".