[neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin?

[Thenoticer]

I think i like sync more and more. Plus the public is already used to seeing the word sync

[1715548056]

1715548056

[TPTB_need_war]

It is very important to recognize that we are targeting two different markets simultaneously and thus we will need two names:

• Business market: Block chain network for block chain 2.0 features such as different assets, contracts, and programmable block chain. Requires a logically appealing name for the network.
• Consumer market: Internet currency market, and especially with a focus on micro-transactions and social networking markets. Requires subliminally appealing name for the currency unit(s).

Shazam is the name of a well-known music company so you can forget about that.

I and almost everybody I know in Asia has never heard of that music app. So if global markets are paramount, then their brand recognition may not be the paramount consideration. I don't think they can assert a global trademark on block chain or online currency since there is a clear distinction of products. They apparently have been unable to stop others from using the name in other contexts, although (and I haven't verified all) the others may have been well established since before that app was created.

However, it is worrisome that shazam.net is an established financial services company. Could use instead shaazam to side-step, but even so this is somewhat risky and the alternative spelling might lead to misspellings and confusion.

Also I think the key realization is that shazam is not ideal for either target market. For the business market it is too cartoonish. For the consumer market, it only naturally connotes the instantaneous aspect (shazam is an instant transformation like magic poof) and with more pizzazz than others we've proposed, but lacking any distinguishing quality for a currency unit. Also it is not very brandable for a currency unit, because it has existing less general meanings such as in Comics cartoons.

It was a good name for a magical, fast proof-of-work algorithm in a niche setting (where I originally applied it to an unpublished proof-of-work hash design), but not for a widely brandable name of a currency unit.

Shazam is apt where some magic is implied. I think we don't want to introduce mysticism, since the business market wants reliability and the consumer market wants clarity/simplicity.

I haven't voted, but from the list you've got, love is probably the best IMO. It's a juggernaut providing you can transcend it out of the male-orientated nerd soup of the cryptosphere. Tricky to pull-off yet potentially stratospheric.

That is what I was originally thinking. But I have since become more enamored with 'ching' and 'ka-ching' which seem much more naturally fit to a fungible money. Love is damn adstract and is reach to get people to think about fungible money and love being equivalent. After further contemplation, I don't think love is as general as fungible money. Thus we'd be pigeon-holing (subsetting) fungible money. Perhaps "enlightenment" is more general than love.

Please be aware my tentative (subject to change) plan is I will not launch the currency unti here in this forum, to investors nor to cryptonerds. If my plan succeeds, I will be launching it directly to the users (a.k.a. technophobes) via an application they need.

The block chain network name will be targeted to the cryptonerds (a.k.a. technophiles).

Clickz is clearly bad - I suspect nefarious BCT accounts are trying to lead you up the primrose path with that one. You ought to be careful about stuff like that.

As best as I can surmise, 'clickz' works in the mind of those people are trying to conflate some notion of internet advertising marketing with our naming goals. It seems to imply a lack of significant understanding/thought of the points made in the thread, and just a instinctive reaction of those who think of pay-per-click advertising's prevalence on the web and the dominant advertising funded economic model of the web.

Perhaps you're trying to think about the situation too logically. So often programmers get addicted to the logical inertia of their code that they can't help apply it to the issue of aesthetics. This is why programmers and marketers are two different faculties. There are exceptions to the rule, but in general there is a demonstrable division in thought-process that should remain divided.

I wear both hats reasonably well as demonstrated by my past successes in mass markets and on being the sole or lead developer (as well as the janitor, marketer, customer support rep, accountant, tax advisor, etc... I had a lot of energy in youth!).

My thought process ever since I proposed the name 'Sync' for the block chain network and separate names for the currency units, was to acknowledge that I am fully aware of what you are pointing out, and that I knew we needed a logically appealing name for the business target market and a simple, catchy name for the consumer target market. Both markets require aesthetic names, but the aesthetic requirements are different. The business market needs to be simply fit yet not threatening to reliability, logical concerns or needs, and other serious considerations, e.g. IBM = International Business Machines and Microsoft = microcomputer software. The consumer name needs to convey some clear notion that elicits a positive emotional reaction, while also not being confusing (neither in spelling, phonetics, competing consumer brands and popular trends, ease of popularly catching on and being widely identified, etc).

The majority of end-consumers tend not to really give any thought or care at all to the etymology or logic of a branding concept. Apple Computers for example: It's not even allegorical - completely abstract. Amazon, GoDaddy, the US Dollar. What does any of this crap actually mean? Not much.

Apple Computer, GoDaddy and Amazon are targeting a consumer market. Their business respect came from their achievements in the consumer markets. But they weren't initially targeting a business market orthogonal to their consumer market offerings.

In general, people gravitate (mostly subconciously) toward simple aesthetics. The sound of a certain combination of phonetics and/or syllables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_poetry. The look of a certain shape, symbol, angle or parallel. Simple impressions with abstract personalities.

Yeah observe the impact on reader's impression after they see my mockup of 'Sync' with gears on the 'nc'. People need to see, hear, or sense the aesthetics.

Leave the logic and the reason for the code itself.

Well for targeting a business market, I observe that if the name has some logical relevance then it has more convincing and powerful effect. Businesses hate risky choices.

Also if you're going to do it properly get the symbol sorted out first. Assuming the cryptocurrency is to function like any other currency, the symbol is hands down the most important constant to get right. The symbol is the greatest memetic representative of the finished product.

Just think about about the universality of the dollar symbol, the euro symbol, the yen symbol, the bitcoin symbol. Simple colorless shapes.

So if you're starting with a blank canvas where anything is possible, choose a symbol (for it's abstract aesthetic beauty) and work backwards. Use the symbol as the starting point, and then come up with a name that best represents it.

http://www.copypastecharacter.com/all-characters

Remember that you're trying to spawn a currency, not a product or a piece of software.

Since I think I am choosing the currency units 'ka-ching', 'ching' and 'chan' (from largest to smallest), then the currency symbol is the well known cents symbol ¢ for 'ching' and 'ka-ching' layer a reversed ʞ where the vertical line remains in the same place as for the ¢ and the tips on the > extend out like gear teeth (to match the sync logo concept of gears on the c). For 'chan' I am thinking the h is layered on top where the vertical line remains in the same place as for the ¢.

ching
CHiNG/
noun
an abrupt high-pitched ringing sound, typically one made by a cash register.

ka-ching
kəˈCHiNG/
noun
used to represent the sound of a cash register, especially with reference to making money.

Ch'an (traditional Chinese: 禪; simplified Chinese: 禅, abbr. of Chinese: 禪那; pinyin: chánnà), from Sanskrit dhyāna, meaning "meditation" or "meditative state")
noun, Chinese.
1.
Zen (enlightenment)

Thus:

	ka-ching	ching	chan
ka-ching		= 1000 ching	= 1 million chan
ching	= milli-ka-ching		= 1000 chan
chan	= micro-ka-ching	= milli-ching

Thus if ka-ching (kiloching) are $1 or less in value, then ching are preferred for expressing whole numbers for values between a tenth of a cent up to a few dollars at most. And chans (or milliching) are for micro-transactions with whole numbers for values between 1/10,000 of a cent up to a few cents at most. To express value smaller than chan, then a number with a decimal point can be used, else 'millichan'.

The problem is as the value for the currency rises, the exchange value of ka-ching will not stay within the ideal range between $1 - $10, thus the relevant association of value brackets will change over time until the exchange value stabilizes.

I have thought perhaps we can put in the block chain what the value of a 'ka-ching' is so that the consensus network keeps within that desired range of $1 - $10, i.e. when it falls below a dollar, then a 'ka-ching' is revalued to 10 times greater and vice versa. This would require that websites use some scripting for displaying price quotes so their displays update as the block chain does. This has trade-offs.


Note please realize that users who think of only the currency unit, will be able to find the GUI clients via the appropriate Google search and end up at:

ka-ching.cash
ching.cash
chan.cash

That currency unit is just one asset on the Sync consensus network. Thus it is an orthogonal product to Sync.

And those business users searching for Sync, would end up at:

Sync.run


Edit: a quoted discussion explaining why the currency unit asset and target market is distinct from the block chain 2.0 functionality:

I would go for Ethereum before Dash.

Well, Ethereum got a nice boost when they got endorsement from Microsoft but its not focussing
on all the digital properties of money (transaction speed, transaction privacy, fungibility, decentralised voting and budget)
like Dash is doing.

Instead it seems to be more of a platform for developers where others can create applications that they can then run on top of it.
So i consider Dash and Ethereum two totally different projects and both have space to grow in their own niche.

edit : with perhaps Ethereum operating in a much bigger niche than Dash...

I agree there is really not a valid comparison there. Dash and Bitcoin are somewhat a valid comparison as both are attempting to be primarily payment systems, not smart contract platforms. They differ somewhat in how they approach things like privacy, fast payments, etc. but the goals are at least similar.

[TPTB_need_war]

I haven't voted, but from the list you've got, love is probably the best IMO. It's a juggernaut providing you can transcend it out of the male-orientated nerd soup of the cryptosphere. Tricky to pull-off yet potentially stratospheric.

That is what I was originally thinking. But I have since become more enamored with 'ching' and 'ka-ching' which seem much more naturally fit to a fungible money. Love is damn adstract and is reach to get people to think about fungible money and love being equivalent. After further contemplation, I don't think love is as general as fungible money. Thus we'd be pigeon-holing (subsetting) fungible money. Perhaps "enlightenment" is more general than love.

Please be aware my tentative (subject to change) plan is I will not launch the currency unti here in this forum, to investors nor to cryptonerds. If my plan succeeds, I will be launching it directly to the users (a.k.a. technophobes) via an application they need.

The block chain network name will be targeted to the cryptonerds (a.k.a. technophiles).

...

	ka-ching	ching	chan
ka-ching		= 1000 ching	= 1 million chan
ching	= milli-ka-ching		= 1000 chan
chan	= micro-ka-ching	= milli-ching

The techno-nerds might prefer:

	ions	axions	bosons
ions		= 1000 axions	= 1 million bosons
axions	= milli-ions		= 1000 bosons
bosons	= micro-ions	= milli-axions

Thinking further, there is a desire for simplification. I think it would be better to pick one name for the currency until, e.g. 'ching' or 'chan', then use only two currency units, e.g. 'ka-ching' and 'ching'. If via block chain updating, we peg 'ka-ching' to a value between $0.1 and $1, then it covers normal commerce values with large whole number quantities than dollars. Then 'ching' would range between $0.0001 and $0.001 which probably about perfect for whole number quantities for most micro-transactions. For a smaller unit, employ 'milliching' and/or a decimal point number.

I am more inclined to choose 'ching' over 'chan' because it is already understood to be money.

The 'ka' prefix (for kilo or 1000) doesn't work for other proposed currency units such as 'loves', 'vibes', 'ions', 'swaps', 'bits', 'nuggets', 'clicks', 'zing', etc.. Instead one can form the smaller units from the largest until by prefixing with 'milli' (thousandth), 'micro' (millionth), 'nano' (billionth), and 'pico' (trillionth). In that case, a name that begins with a vowel doesn't work well as you will be need a hyphen after the prefix. But it does mean micro-transactions with have a more verbose unit, but maybe that is not an issue in many cases (and may have a currency symbols for the smaller units). The range to 'pico' eliminates the need to rebase the primary unit in the block chain as exchange value changes, which is better because for example the dollar may become undefined in the future. Note millichan, microchan, nanochan, and picochan work also, but seems really Frankenstein to mix those prefixes with that suffix.

Although I like "ka-ching" and "chan", I am concerned they might not be taken seriously and there is the chicken and egg dilemma that need users to take the nascent project seriously before many of them will embrace it, and probably need many users to embrace so as to achieve viral branding on a new use of a word.

Noting that 25% of the voters have preferred names with 'bit' in them and noting the dilemma explained above, as well nothing there are many ___coins, but very few Bit___ projects and there can only be one Bits project...

Thus I propose a radical simplication:

bits

This seems to hit both the technonerds and the masses can latch onto this. I prefer this over Bitcoin actually. I am very surprised no one has used it already. As for the "go asian" theme, the Chinese will love 'bits' as much as or more than 'chan', because they respect the role of authority, establishment, tradition, wisdom, and new technology.

Bitcoin's community has never quite worked out consistently whether they refer to smaller units of Bitcoins as mBTC, millibitcoins, mBTC, satoshis, etc.. Perhaps I have seen or heard some refer to bits, but it is far from a consistent and endorsed usage. And the Bitcoin currency symbol is an image BTC and not a unicode symbol Ƀ. This is what happens between a block chain 1.0 and a block chain 2.0. Many errors get fixed. The positive thing about going this direction is many technophobe people will just assume this is extension or upgrade or simplification on the concept of Bitcoin. The negative is it may anger Bitcoin supporters (but that might actually be a good result because people who dish out dogma about open source and then get angry when something is improved with a fork are hypocrites ).

I propose the following units and currency symbols.

Ƀ	Bits
ҍ	millibits
ḅ	microbits
ʘ	nanobits

There are many choices for symbols for currency symbol units:

Ƀ
฿
ƀ
ѣ
ҍ
␢
ꝥꝧ
ъ
ƃ
ᵬ
ƅ
ꙏ
ɓ
ᶀ
ḅ
ḇ
ᖚ
β
ϐ
ʘꙩꙫꙭ
µ

[boolberry]

I propose the following units and currency symbols.

Ƀ	Bits
ҍ	millibits
ḅ	microbits
ʘ	nanobits

I like the simplicity of that choice, maybe more than clickz/clix. The only negative I can see is Bits being too closely related to Bitcoin.

It sounds like you are trying to consider both the potential positive and negative impacts of this similarity.

[TPTB_need_war]

Bitcoin could attempt a reverse coup d'état, by fully embracing bits over btc/bitcoin and then attempt to siphon back the usage. But I think this might fail, because essentially they'd be doing advertising for Bits as well. And I am fairly confident about who can out innovate in terms of when users land on something, do they get what they wanted immediately (and don't have to sign up for an exchange, KYC, and that crap or funding via localbitcoins, coins.ph, quickbit, or what ever using a credit card perhaps).

[smooth]

Bitcoin could attempt a reverse coup d'état, by fully embracing bits over btc/bitcoin and then attempt to siphon back the usage. But I think this might fail, because essentially they'd be doing advertising for Bits as well. And I am fairly confident about who can out innovate in terms of when users land on something, do they get what they wanted immediately (and don't have to sign up for sn exchange, KYC, and that crap or funding via localbitcoins, coins.ph, quickbit, or what ever using a credit card perhaps).

bits has already been proposed, and on a small scale perhaps even used, as a smaller unit for bitcoin.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1rmto3/its_bits/
https://blog.coinbase.com/2014/06/20/its-bits/

[TPTB_need_war]

Bitcoin could attempt a reverse coup d'état, by fully embracing bits over btc/bitcoin and then attempt to siphon back the usage. But I think this might fail, because essentially they'd be doing advertising for Bits as well. And I am fairly confident about who can out innovate in terms of when users land on something, do they get what they wanted immediately (and don't have to sign up for sn exchange, KYC, and that crap or funding via localbitcoins, coins.ph, quickbit, or what ever using a credit card perhaps).

bits has already been proposed, and on a small scale perhaps even used, as a smaller unit for bitcoin.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1rmto3/its_bits/
https://blog.coinbase.com/2014/06/20/its-bits/

Thanks. Yeah I remember I had seen something like this before, but as I said it has not been widely nor consistently adopted. In other words, there can't be confusion because Bitcoin has never been pervasively referred to as bits. That appears to have been an open source proposal for bits to be an alias for µBTC (and not even BTC), thus bits was not an actual name for Bitcoin and was an alias for micro-transactions which are not prevalent (at least from a user perspective where any stake for confusion and market adoption would lay, although perhaps auto generated by bots such as SatoshiDice) in Bitcoin because the block chain can only handle 7 TX/s.

Thus I don't think Bitcoin supports can righteously can claim a monopoly over the use of term bits for crypto-tokens. It appears to be an unused term w.r.t. to an open source block chain and widely adopted currency unit.

In effect those are Bitcoin µBTC bits, and not just bits the block chain unit. Coinbase might be induced to change their GUI to indicate that reality of the fact that Bitcoin is named Bitcoin and not Bits.

A lawsuit by Coinbase against Bits would be excellent publicity for a nascent coin. What is the most they can accomplish with a lawsuit? Confiscate the domains? They can't prevent an open source name. What really matters is what the community wants. And again I don't think we will grow crypto by only targeting the existing Bitcoin monotheists (putting all their eggs in one basket). Rather if they are wise, they will embrace a project that lights a fire under the Bitcoin community and shows them how apathetic they've been. A project that can actually fix and organize some things that Bitcoin hadn't managed to get done in 6 years.

[smooth]

That appears to have been an open source proposal for bits to be an alias for µBTC (and not even BTC), thus bits was not an actual name for Bitcoin and was an alias for micro-transactions which are not prevalent (at least from a user perspective where any stake for confusion and market adoption would lay, although perhaps auto generated by bots such as SatoshiDice) in Bitcoin because the block chain can only handle 7 TX/s.

I think the idea was not necessarily for micro transactions but to transition to more of a Yen-type model where ordinary transactions that people already do are for (relatively) large numbers of bits rather than small fractions of Bitcoins, the latter being seen as less user-friendly. Also, by making a satoshi 1/100 of a bit, accounting software that supports two decimal places becomes more compatible. It seems to have mostly gone inactive as BTC value dropped.

[TPTB_need_war]

That appears to have been an open source proposal for bits to be an alias for µBTC (and not even BTC), thus bits was not an actual name for Bitcoin and was an alias for micro-transactions which are not prevalent (at least from a user perspective where any stake for confusion and market adoption would lay, although perhaps auto generated by bots such as SatoshiDice) in Bitcoin because the block chain can only handle 7 TX/s.

I think the idea was not necessarily for micro transactions but to transition to more of a Yen-type model where ordinary transactions that people already do are for (relatively) large numbers of bits rather than small fractions of Bitcoins, the latter being seen as less user-friendly. Also, by making a satoshi 1/100 of a bit, accounting software that supports two decimal places becomes more compatible. It seems to have mostly gone inactive as BTC value dropped.

Ah yes, thanks for the clarification.

Even if BTC had remained high, the rebranding as bits would not have likely gained support, because people are quite proud of how much their BTC is worth (scarcity and the pride of owning an entire Bitcoin, 10, 100, or 1000 of them) and they are also quite proud of their Bitcoins, not their bits. I think the resistance against rebranding an established product is much more inertia that inexperienced marketers may comprehend. Bitcoin ever since it became a speculative fever (and become much more popular and well known, i.e. branded), has always been about how many of these precious limited supply items you could obtain in the mad rush to convert the entire world's $250 trillion net worth into BTC.

The Bitcoin community did not adopt Ƀ (which is a unicode character that can be pasted into any text displayed in a browser) and clung to BTC which is an image, I presume not only because it was already established, but because of pride they wanted to emulate the and not emulate the Thai baht ฿. We have all seen how pride as been one of the common traits of Bitcoin fanboiz.

So either bits was was for micro-transactions alias as I posited (but Bitcoin can't do micro-transactions volume) or as explained by smooth it was for a "Yen-like" rebranding which was rejected by the community, which he explains due to a lowering of the BTC price, but regardless I think is simply a fact of brand inertia. It is virtually impossible to have two branded names for the same product in same target market (notwithstanding one could have two related products in two different target markets, e.g. Sync consensus network and Bits currency but I will probably abandon Sync if we choose Bits since the latter could serve both target markets and ostensibly unification is preferred in that case).

Edit: The more I think about this rebranding point, the more important I think it is to recognize that the target market is not easily changed midstream into a product's adoption. I posit that Bitcoin's demographic has been one the inertia humps that is retarding it from moving to the next order(s)-of-magnitude in mass adoption. I have some very specific reasons for positing that which I will detail in hindsight at the appropriate juncture.

[tromp]

But you may want to avoid combining "bits" with "privacy":-)

https://www.google.com/search?q=private+bits&tbm=isch

[TPTB_need_war]

I have made the decision to donate the ion.cash domain to smooth and the Aeon project. I believe I spent $40$49.15 to register it afair.

If you would like to accept this meager donation, please tell me how to transfer it to your desired registrant. It is currently registered at GoDaddy under my name.

It would be best to complete this before I become too busy on other matters.

P.S. This is orthogonal to any other issues. The name ion likely was a subconscious invention after learning smooth was working on aeon. I'd prefer to not have two coins with such similar names (in addition to iota). I have other available choices for names, so I think this name should go to whom was first.

Thank you for the donation. I'll PM the instructions from our registrar.

I unlocked it for you at GoDaddy (subliminal "who is your daddy?").

Good to see it has suggested utility in your coin community. In my polls it seemed to have at least a 50% approval rating and stood up well to other names in terms of voting even when I was discouraging voting for it.

The reason I spent $49.15, was because Godaddy was the only registrar that had it available. I expended a fair amount of effort to find ion.cash available, as it was not available on the other registrars I normally use.

[trollercoaster]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1234442.0

A different coin popped up today with the Bitz name.

[TPTB_need_war]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1234442.0

A different coin popped up today with the Bitz name.

He deleted my following post from that new self-moderated thread and has locked his prior pre-announcement thread (which was not self-moderated).

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

I am noting the website bits.biz did not become what it is now until some time after Aug 1, 2015.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150801031514/http://bits.biz/



Please be advised that I am claiming the names Bits, Bitsync, and Sync for a crypto-token and crypto-network project under development. Also be advised that I also advocated the use of 'z' as a substitute spelling for plural 's' and have argued that such spellings cause confusion.

I have also registered bitzcash.net and bitz.cash. Please note the seriousness of my project development means that it is very unlikely yours will have any significant relative usership to compete with my use of the names and thus you will not likely benefit from the use of a confusing duplicate name.

I therefor amicably advise you to be realistic and pick another name if you are serious, but any way I do not see your project as anything more than another "yawn" copycoin that will flame out and wither away. In short, I am advising you that I am taking this name space and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

You may be able to get more for your bitz.biz domain by donating it to our project later than the very unlikely possibility that you will get anything for it from your inadequate PoS copycoin effort. I hope you understand the caliber of developer you are up against and make the wise and amicable decision.

I do empathize if this seems rude or disrespectful of your few months "pre-announcement" headstart on the similarly spelled name, but I do not believe you have the capability to produce a world class Bitcoin killer project and I believe I do. Thus I will not back down from the use of the name Bits if my community continues to believe that is the best name for our project.

Sincerely.

As an example of the confusion in spelling, note in my multi-tasking haste, I did the quoted whois search on bits.biz, not bitz.biz. Lol.  

Actually the first record of his website becoming active with the crypto-token is Sept 28, 2015.

Note in addition to various bits domain names, I have also registered:

bitsync.us
bitsyn.co
bitsyn.ch
bitsync.biz
bitsync.network

So if we refer to our consensus network as as "Sync", that is short-hand for Bits Sync or BlocSync.

The currency is Bits or Bits.cash.

[americanpegasus]

I'd just like to thank TPTB for surrendering any 'social claim' he might have to the Ion name to the Aeon community. 
 
We will proceed as if we have the consensus of the crypto community to use this name in conjunction with our coin.  The current plan is to use it as our form of 'bit' (one millionth of an Aeon). 
 
Thanks again; I think this is a plan that makes the most sense for everyone involved.

[TPTB_need_war]

I am looking forward to see what smooth et al can do with the Aeon/Ion theme and it is well known that I respect smooth's skills. He and I already established that he is a computer programming language polygot (as I am, but he more so), he has exceptional logic, and that he is a more experienced and complete network stack engineer than I am (and that last item is an understatement!). I have much more experience and interest than he does in the user interface and visual creativity side. Heck I even wrote GUI subsystems such as emulating the Mac API on Windows for what is now Corel Painter.

Smooth and I want essentially the same goal which is for crypto to become much more popular and to advance the technology. We are both fascinated by the concepts and the possibilities. I believe smooth is more of out-of-the-box thinker (but maybe not as far out-of-the-box as myself, so let's just say nuances of cultural difference perhaps for example as he appears to have been heavily experienced in open source for long time and I came from the commercial world of graphics and destop publishing software) than perhaps some of the other Monero devs who may be more pragmatically focused.

I think fundamentally the major difference is those devs appear to come from server backend type open source backgrounds, and I come from the Steve Jobs era of highly refined creativity and delivering million user consumer software. Those guys interfaced mostly B2B and I interfaced mostly B2C. I think that is why we are seeing massive cultural friction between our styles. I did not come from academia and publishing white papers. I was sleeping under my desk as a programmer since the summer of 1983 pretty much non-stop until Dec. 1, 1999. I've been mostly out-of-production since at least 2012 due to illness. From 2003 to 2009, I was goofing off. In 2010 and 2011, I made some serious attempts to be productive again. I coded some social networking sites but nothing hit a sweet spot.

[americanpegasus]

I am looking forward to see what smooth et al can do with the Aeon/Ion theme and it is well known that I respect smooth's skills. He and I already established that he is a computer programming language polygot (as I am, but he more so)... I coded some social networking sites but nothing hit a sweet spot.

 
  
I have coded many times in my life (even majored in Comp Sci at one point) and maintain an interest in it, but know that even if I dedicated myself to coding I would be at best above-average.  
  
Creativity, writing, and thinking outside the box are my strong suits, even if their contributions to an ecosystem are hard to quantify.  I prefer exploring the bridge between technology and psychology that Apple seemed to master vs. mastering the hard technology itself.  
  
I respect that you evidently have been active in the tech field since it hit its exponential growth in the 80's, and despite being from different generations, I think we both realize that this (cryptography applied to money) is the next big frontier in technology.  It will likely transform the entire world.  I hope that you'll consider staying an active member of the Aeon community, even if you dislike the Monero one.  Coincidentally, I just brought up the idea of changing Aeon's tail emission to be perpetually inflationary (albeit at a low rate).  I know you have strong opinions about economic principles, so please feel free to drop by the Aeon [ANN] topic and give your opinion, even if you have no stake in that particular blockchain.  
  
Here's wishing you the best of luck with your own currency.

[EBK1000]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1234442.0

A different coin popped up today with the Bitz name.

He deleted my following post from that new self-moderated thread and has locked his prior pre-announcement thread (which was not self-moderated).

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

I am noting the website bits.biz did not become what it is now until some time after Aug 1, 2015.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150801031514/http://bits.biz/



Please be advised that I am claiming the names Bits, Bitsync, and Sync for a crypto-token and crypto-network project under development. Also be advised that I also advocated the use of 'z' as a substitute spelling for plural 's' and have argued that such spellings cause confusion.

I have also registered bitzcash.net and bitz.cash. Please note the seriousness of my project development means that it is very unlikely yours will have any significant relative usership to compete with my use of the names and thus you will not likely benefit from the use of a confusing duplicate name.

I therefor amicably advise you to be realistic and pick another name if you are serious, but any way I do not see your project as anything more than another "yawn" copycoin that will flame out and wither away. In short, I am advising you that I am taking this name space and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

You may be able to get more for your bitz.biz domain by donating it to our project later than the very unlikely possibility that you will get anything for it from your inadequate PoS copycoin effort. I hope you understand the caliber of developer you are up against and make the wise and amicable decision.

I do empathize if this seems rude or disrespectful of your few months "pre-announcement" headstart on the similarly spelled name, but I do not believe you have the capability to produce a world class Bitcoin killer project and I believe I do. Thus I will not back down from the use of the name Bits if my community continues to believe that is the best name for our project.

Sincerely.

As an example of the confusion in spelling, note in my multi-tasking haste, I did the quoted whois search on bits.biz, not bitz.biz. Lol.  

Actually the first record of his website becoming active with the crypto-token is Sept 28, 2015.

Note in addition to various bits domain names, I have also registered:

bitsync.us
bitsyn.co
bitsyn.ch
bitsync.biz
bitsync.network

So if we refer to our consensus network as as "Sync", that is short-hand for Bits Sync or BlocSync.

The currency is Bits or Bits.cash.

The post was deleted as it has nothing to do with BITZ currency which was launched on 01/03/2015, so we have been around for 8 months now. We are at https://bitz.biz and we have been on that domain since February. I think that you would confuse the market as there is already Bitstar (BITS) and BITZ so your coin would be the third one called BITS.

[TPTB_need_war]

The post was deleted as it has nothing to do with BITZ currency which was launched on 01/03/2015, so we have been around for 8 months now. We are at https://bitz.biz and we have been on that domain since February. I think that you would confuse the market as there is already Bitstar (BITS) and BITZ so your coin would be the third one called BITS.

Thank you for the response and explanation.

I wish the marketing power of the name choice did not compel me to choose it, because I would prefer not to use something that anyone else had attempted to market. Unfortunately, I see this as the best name by far in order to take on Bitcoin which is what I intend to do. I am not just building a niche, but intending to replace Bitcoin in some potentially large markets where it had decided to ignore the market (e.g. micro-transactions, anonymity as a key property of fungible money, friendly developer APIs, block chain features other than just Bitcoin, etc).

It is clear that the first proposed use of 'BIT' or 'bits' was the proposal to use it as an alias for µBTC, which is a prior art on your use of Bitz as a currency unit. However this was not widely adopted by the millions in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Your coin is not even a smidgen of widely adopted (certainly not users, and only a modicum of investors) so there will be no confusion if Bits gains wide user adoption. And Bits doesn't gain wide adoption, then both of us failed in the user market. As for confusion in the investor speculation market where your adoption could be claimed to be not totally zero, I want to assure you I will not be marketing Bits on these forums nor to the investment speculators, thus there will be no confusion in the market where you have some small (perhaps growing) but not zero market share.

So in other words, there will be no confusion because while Bits is nascent, it won't be promoted (not by me at least) in these forums where you promote Bitz, but rather directly to users via other distribution channels where you do not market Bitz. And if Bits becomes a widely adopted user phenomenon that is on speculators' radar, then there won't be confusion which Bits the speculators are interested in by that juncture.

I was aware of Bitstar and their technically incorrect use of BITS as the currency code (XBT or XBS would be correct), but I didn't know they were using BITS as the currency unit. Bitstar uses the currency symbol ฿ and I proposed Bits use Ƀ. Indeed Bitstar uses the 'BITS' currency unit whereas I have proposed using the 'bits' currency unit:



Also we should note that the name of the coin is Bitstar and not Bits, which is not confusing at all. If someone searches for "bits coin" or "bits cash", they will end up at my project's website and not at Bitstarcoin.com. If they search for "bitstar", "bitstar coin", "bitstar bits", they will end up at Bitstarcoin.com.

So we have two prior arts on using the term 'BITS' (even the Coinbase capitalized the 'BIT' for the µBTC alias) for the currency unit, but no prior art for using the term Bits as a crypto-token protocol name.

And what matters in the end is whether there will be confusion due to two very similar names having similar levels of market awareness. I don't think there is much confusion between Bits and Bitstar. If someone says "pay me some bits" at this time, no one would have any clue whether they mean Bitcoin BITS, Bitstar BITS, or Bitz bitz. So at this time since these projects or usages are very rare, then someone would need to qualify which kind of bits they want. So in that case they would say "pay me some Bits' bits". If one of these usages becomes very widely adopted in the user market, then no one will be confused which bits someone is referring to. As for investors, there won't be any confusion between Bits and Bitstar.

I really don't see great confusion between Bits and Bitstar. Bitz and Bits could be very confusing if both are well known in a market. I think I explained to you that for the nascent investor speculation market, Bits won't be competing with Bitz for eyeball share. If Bits becomes very popular as I hope in user markets, then Bits will have won and there won't be any confusion. If Bits dies on the vine in user markets, then you will keep your small share of the investor speculation market exclusively.

It is not a perfect situation, but I think it will work out okay. If I am successful as I hope to be, you may get more from selling your domain than from your crypto-token project. If not, your efforts won't be diluted in the meantime.

To protect the Bits crypto-token protocol usage, I registered the following domains:

bitscoin.org
bitscoin.us

I am amazed the first domain is available, because it is a one letter misspelling of bitcoin.org which is taken to be the official domain of Bitcoin. So if people start using bits and get confused with Bitcoin, they might type bitscoin and end up at my site. Note it appears bitscoin.com and bitscoin.net are both for sale (the latter for $1500).

From the results of this poll so far you are losing/alienating your audience. Stop posting polls and other shit every day and go build something.

Remember up thread it was smooth (but more so another Monero supporter) who were stating I should shut up and code instead of focusing first on choosing a name. I understand the priority of marketing and even apparently the Bitcoin community did not.

Edit: there is more discussion about the adoption of "BIT" or "bit" for Bitcoin's µBTC alias, as well the need to adopt XBT instead of BTC as the ISO currency code. I believe it would make much more sense for Bitcoin to use XBC and for Bits to use XBT. But if Bitcoin is going to claim XBT, then Bits can choose XIT, XBC, XBI, or XBS.

[TPTB_need_war]

I propose the following units and currency symbols.

Ƀ	Bits
ҍ	millibits
ḅ	microbits
ʘ	nanobits

The lowercase of Ƀ is ƀ. Thus if we own domains such as ƀits.net, then Ƀits.net is same domain since all uppercase letters are converted to lowercase (by the web browser) when navigating to a domain (because domains are always lowercase).

Thus I have changed the proposed millibits symbol from ҍ to ƀ.

Also there are variants of ʘ, e.g. ⵙ and ꖴ, but I think I prefer the first one.

Also there is an alternative spelling for Sync that would clearly not be already trademarked and can be used in a domain name:

synᕳ
syᕱᕳ

[TPTB_need_war]

So far we have proposed Sync (a.k.a syᕱᕳ, BlocSync, Bitsync, Ƀitsync) for the consensus network on which many assets may co-exist.

And we have proposed Bits (a.k.a Ƀits, Bitcash, Ƀitscash, or Ƀitscoin) for the currency name:

Ƀ	Bits
ƀ	millibits
ḅ	microbits
ʘ	nanobits

I am now also proposing there be a second currency, either (Cha-)Ching or Cꙭl cash. This second currency will be more playful.

The Bits currency will have a very low debasement rate (perhaps 0% if contemplated to be equivalent to the "transaction fee" rate). The Ching or Cꙭl currency will have a higher debasement rate. In this way, users can choose to sell first from merged mining that which has the lower ROI for mining (even though I expect mining to be unprofitable for professional miners and ASICs). In this way, there will be a natural market regulation between high and low debasement rate options. The high debasement rate will put more tokens in the hands of users and probably have a higher velocity of money (TX/s) which implies a higher valuation, but this is offset by the desire to not hold it for store-of-value if the higher velocity does not sufficiently offset (in short, it is complex and the market must arbitrage the balance).

The playful currency will only have one unit (to prevent nꙭbs confusion) and it will be set so that micrʘ-transactions are whole number values. The proposed currency symbols are:

✨	(cha-)ching
ꙭ	cool (cash)