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

[Thenoticer]

Yeah dabs are also slang for hash oil rips. Lol

You know, swipes ain't half bad. I owe you 2 swipes.

Zing reminds me of the 50s batman
Zap
Kerpow
Swoosh
Woosh

[naujas123]

Hey, TPTB_need_war
please check your inbox, i've wrote you PM.
Thanks

[TPTB_need_war]

You are pigeon-holing it. People are going to be exchanging micropayments on all sorts of activity that do not involved an NFC interaction with a mobile phone. You will confuse users and cause them to think this is a bastardized Apple Pay and they will prefer the corporate NFC not some bizarro decentralized wannabe crap (from their mindset).

Many more users have heard of Viber, Likes, love, and swiping than they will care or hear about NFC any time soon. You are replacing a generalized, currently popular association with a very narrow and future looking one that will be dominated by corporate behemoths.

And why are you pigeon-holing this only to payments. This is about ecosystems and all sorts of social paradigms of interaction that come from fungibility of expressions of interest.

You are missing the point. The BIG point.

So, you're going for micro payments?

I am (on the longer-term view) going for any informational value from the virtual world that benefits from being recorded on a block chain and thus needs block chain scaling and fast, real-time transactions.

Micro exchanges of monetary or social value is one of those.

For the more general case, I seem to prefer zing, val, ion, or netoken. For the social networking case, love or vibe seems to be more apt, but perhaps it is wiser to stick with a name that is more general.

Seems to me Zing really works the best overall. It has some appeal in the social interaction case, it has some appeal generally given the meaning of fast, and it also means energy which is hitech leaning.

Val seems too boring. For programmers.

Ion seems good also, almost as good as Zing but lacks the impact in the social networking case because it has really no meaning for most females and non-technophiles.

Netoken seems very bland and conservative, but safe (maybe too safe and can't get any separation in the market and enthusiasm).

[illodin]

Ion seems good also, almost as good as Zing but lacks the impact in the social networking case because it has really no meaning for most females and non-technophiles.

Perhaps the logo could be something that appeals to women. Name for technophiles, logo for blondes.

http://img.logoinlogo.com/120724060725-female-logo-1.png
http://wpjuices.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Feminine-Fashion.jpg
http://www.thelogomix.com/files/u7/fere.jpg
http://www.serenaillescas.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/kagan.jpg
http://worth1000.s3.amazonaws.com/submissions/8909000/8909174_832f_625x1000.jpg

"Click here to send some Ion love"

[TPTB_need_war]

Yeah dabs are also slang for hash oil rips. Lol

You know, swipes ain't half bad. I owe you 2 swipes.

Zing reminds me of the 50s batman
Zap
Kerpow
Swoosh
Woosh

Okay if Zing is moving too far towards cartoons (and it is close to Microsoft's Bing search engine), and swipes is moving too specific to one action and not all the general cases of storing information from the virtual world on a block chain, yet we also need to say something that normal people can draw some meaning from and serious investors won't be turned off, then how about:

datum

Not really sure if I like it. Had thought of it many times since 2014.

But then we lose the fast meaning, but I am not so sure that is necessary. People expect money to be fast. I don't think we need to really say that.

[Thenoticer]

Does it have to be an English word?

Also I kinda like ion.  Rhymes with lion and Zion.
And the Bob Marley tune can be modified to

"I'm going to use ion , like  a lion, from Zion."

[iamnicholas]

     mycash.io

it's killer..let it linger.....

[iamnicholas]

Cash is fungible. Cash belongs to whoever holds it in their possession.
The purpose behind anonymity is to turn traceable coin into untraceable cash.
And 'my,' is self explanatory. That's mycash motherfucker ..
.io is king.
www.mycash.io is a gift to the most promising dev.
In my opinion, that person is AnonyMint.
mycash.io
bam

[TPTB_need_war]

On the 'swipe' idea, there is already 'touch' coin (which appears to have died). On the exchange of energy concept, there is already a 'synergy' coin. There is already a 'global' coin.

I am not against 'ion', just trying to exhaust my search for a superior name before relenting.

Reflecting more on the essence of what I was attempting capture with 'zing' and 'love' is some universal concept of value that transcends monetary capital (and with zing also capturing the concept of fast). With 'zing' (or 'zeal'), 'love', and 'vibe', I potentially captured another form of value that may be more popular but I didn't capture the general essence of value. I thought of 'power', 'deed', 'merit', and 'good' but again these are not the essence of value.

The essence of value is what ever any one thinks it is, i.e. the essence of value is that it is not fungible! In theory we could have underlying general fungible, tagless/unnamed 'unit' and then it could be displayed to user with the moniker alias that represented which ever category of value the user is interested in, but that belies the fact that value is not fungible. So then what is a fungible unit if it is the antithesis of value? A fungible unit is—as Andreas explained in his recent video presentation—communication of information about relative values. Money is not a good, but rather an informational junction where society communicates dynamically about values. So this is why I suggested the name 'datum'.

My other attempt at naming the essence of this fungible unit of money other than calling it the abstract concept 'money', 'fungibles', or 'unit', I have thought of this information as being the driver or basis of relative values, thus names such as 'base', 'basis', 'pith', catalyst', 'motivation', and 'fuel' come to mind.

The essence of the block chain is not its representation (in digital, mathematical, or electronic form) but the key distinguishing trait is that (in theory) it is universal, consistent, and not relative to any place, entity, or influence. The exchange value is not absolute, so I am referring the record of information being absolute. In this context, afaics absolute is a sufficient substitution for allodial title.

Does anyone like the name 'absolute'?

Wouldn't this name have strong appeal amongst those who want unassailable, incorruptible, permissionless commerce, contracts, and system protocols?

However, that name doesn't say much about microtransactions, scalable block chain, nor even say anything particularly enticing to the masses.

Thanks for the offer of mycash. It isn't inappropriate, just not sure if it can brand and stand away from all the other ___cash and ___coin. Let's think about.

[Thenoticer]

Vedanta

Vedan
Danta
Ve


Schrödinger, in speaking of a universe in which particles are represented by wave functions, said, “The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics.  This is entirely consistent with the Vedanta concept of All in One.”

http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/

[boolberry]

I think ion is a good name but so are some of the other names you suggested. There may not be a perfect answer. Try to pick one with no trademark issues and with premium domain names available.

Hopefully you are feeling better!

[TPTB_need_war]

After much thought, I realized I was trying to make it too abstract (see also the minified quoted thoughts below). Users do not relate to these abstract concepts. For them they use the internet and want access to the goods and services thereof and they don't even think that much about using money on the internet because to a large extent access is free (advertising business model). In terms of monetization of the internet, the closest conceptual good I can think of which means something to users and is also related to access, social actions and merits, is this new name I will propose:

clickz

I registered:

clickz.cash	($25)
clickz.click	($9)
clickz.space	($2)
clickz.site	($4)

I have not been able to think of a more direct to the point name which can capture payment, access, virtual quantification, network computing related, social, instantaneous, fungible unit, and some conceptualization of an autonomous, peer-to-peer interaction, decentralized, end-to-end principled.

If you ask any person what clicks are, they know immediately. It means something to everyone. It may sound odd to store clicks, but in effect that is what you want is to be able to click and not be denied access. It captures solidly the difference between the utility and limitations of physical money and virtual decentralized, permission-less money (clicking is an autonomous activity that can communicate around the globe in milliseconds). And as a seller or social figure on the internet, you want more clicks to your profile or site.

Click has another meaning as well which also fits appropriately for the above use case. As for the relationship to block chain 2.0 scaling and programmable block chain, the following definition of clicks seems apropos which relates to synergy, clarity/coherence, and being mutually in sync.

informal
become suddenly clear or understandable.
"finally it clicked what all the fuss had been about"

quickly become friendly or intimate.
"we just clicked, and I found myself falling in love"

become successful or popular.
"I don't think this issue has clicked with the voters"

Note I do realize 'clickz' is not as technophile as 'ion', and even though you might think 'ion' is more brandable just consider the other coin names 'quark' and 'quantum'. I think the meaning is most important. The name 'ion' implies some electric charge which is stored and can be zapped, but only for those engineers who have any clue what an ion is. Most people think of ion probably as salt, lion, or just blank non-understanding. Also I am not really getting any meaning from ion that applies to block chain 2.0 other than the connotation of rapid transfer (discharge). The name 'clickz' will ring a bell in everyone's mind. Even though there will be different ideas of the applicability, I doubt anyone will have blank non-understanding. The average person will think this has something to do with clicking, either internet related or as in becoming more in sync. The investor or even technophile will understand this has something to do with internet traffic, hive action, and synergy. The block chain 2.0 proponent will likely see some veracity to the explanation of meaning relating to keeping the contracts in sync or clicking together.

I am nearly certain that Clickz has more direct meaning to your average person than Bitcoin, for those who have heard of neither. And I think Clickz is much less likely to feared as related to fraud and theft. Clicking is a benign, non-threatening activity. Clickz is much more friendly than Bitcoin. Just look at the coming into sync definition as well as the reality that clicking is a friendly social activity. Bitcoin is associated with scams, drugs, Silk Road, stolen coins, failed centralized exchanges, etc.. Of course eventually Clickz could be so associated if we don't do a better engineering job of creating the paradigms to be more sure that events are a much smaller proportion of the use cases. And the way to do that is to make microtransactions very popular. (Block chain scaling and faster TX/s also makes decentralized exchanges more realistic and I believe there may be other technical ways to strongly motivate users to not let centralized servers hold their private keys)

Thanks, I thought also of veritable, known, note, scribe.

When I think about what a global, internet money really is, then it is really your fungible share of the collective set of values of (virtual) society. Thus I propose a new name:

quotum

It is not a word that most people know. I was a bit surprised that I remembered it as the more positive version of quota (where quota implies a limit and quotum doesn't). Also I believe quotum normally implies the portion within a group or community perhaps akin to its implications in forming a quorum.

The name lacks enthusiasm.

Turning my thoughts away from the universal and systemically coherent quality of the fungible bases for exchange values, to an essential good of this fungible basis, I continue to think of fungibility of exchange as a catalyst for change, more than just a lubricant removing friction, and stored up as potential energy to ignite a process. Thus I propose a name from an existing coin that appears to have died:

spark

Seems that brings me right back to:

zing
oomph

Fungible units are really potential energy. When they are exchanged for non-fungible values the energy becomes kinetic.

Other than the swiftness of 'zing', those names don't directly connote what is unique about decentralized ledgers.

But how would the advantages of decentralized ledgers be presented to an average person such they would even care? The main quality they will be drawn to is the immediacy and lack of tsuris due to not needing to enroll in a bank account nor register. Thus any name implying swiftness might be capturing the only quality of decentralized money that they care about. The other quality would be global utility, and any name which implies it is for general use on the internet automatically signals that trait.

[cryptodromeda]

+1 for clickz.

That's more like it. I'd vote for that.

It's actually a stroke of genius now that I think about it.

Next stop... subreddit. Temporary logo?

p.s I'm sorry if my prior post came off as a bit snooty. (You responded excellently.) I'll be watching and hopefully contributing to the clickz ecosphere.

[TPTB_need_war]

Thank you. I was very groggy when I got too quickly enamored with zing, vibe, and love. Artists have their moments of inspiration and utter fail. Facepalm me.

Btw, please no promotion yet. I need to code. No promotion of vaporware. I just wanted to get the name issue settled so I know what the heck I am calling this code I am working on. Thanks for the enthusiasm. I will apply that boost to my coding resolve.

[TPTB_need_war]

Perspective. I hope he enjoyed the life. Carpe diem. Reach out.

[TPTB_need_war]

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

Does Iota (DAG tangles) need to be only for IoT applications?

What advantage does it have over a normal block chain? Only the faster confirmation time (yet to be quantified) and not needing large blocks (yet all "full" nodes still pretty much need to see all transactions so that aspect of scaling isn't changed from Bitcoin)?

Iota can be used outside of IoT too.

Some advantages are listed here (that thread may be interesting) - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1177633.msg12492916#msg12492916

...

So overall I think this DAG stuff is an improvement over traditional PoW block chains in general, not just for IoT. But I do think I may have a superior design, but I am still analyzing to see what attributes the DAG might have that are superior. The elimination of the blocks and the aliasing error of chain reorganizations perhaps, but seems there are analogous issues in the DAG.

Please do not take my post as desiring to rain on your thread. I won't belabor my points. I am just trying to see where for example we might even collaborate if at all. Looking with an open mind. Cheers.

...

They key advantage I see for DAG tangle form of consensus versus a block chain, my Clickz design, and Lightning Networks, is that appending your transaction into the DAG tangle is autonomous and permission-less (notwithstanding you probably want to see as much of the breadth of the tree as possible thus need a reasonably powerful server and internet connection, or delegate to one)! That is a very profound distinction!

This means that any user can append their transaction to the consensus network and can't be censored per se. Now their transaction might not get included in any other branches of the tree if there is 100% censorship of that transaction, but this isn't very likely. It isn't a 51% all-or-nothing control as in Bitcoin and the conceptual reason is because a DAG tangle has multiple branches of consensus! And even if the probability of double-spend is high on a transaction that has been censored by a large % of the network (not included in their branches), the transaction still has a record in the DAG tangle and so the recipient can still accept the funds if they so choose to take that risk. In other words, the consensus network can multifurcate to route around censorship.

Having said this, the most optimum design for block scaling is not DAG tangles alone, but integrated with my Clickz design. And then also supporting the necessary opcodes so LN can also run on the system (because LN has the least overhead but has some drawbacks that an Iota+Clickz design would offer alternatives to). In other words, these 3 designs all address a slightly different aspect of the consensus scaling network optimization. The Iota design is going to need some tweaking any way, because I see some issues.

Thus I will open private discussions with the Iota team (apparently mthcl and Come-from-Beyond only?) now to see if they are interested in collaborating.

We are at a momentous point where (if I am not mistaken on the myriad of technical details) Iota+Clickz could radically overhaul crypto consensus network scaling, security, and TX/s. I hope they are interested to attempt it along with me if the parameters work for both of us.

I have some optimism because Come-from-Beyond is apparently programming to the Java Virtual Machine as I am as well. We seemed to have (very limited) amicable and agreeable forum discussion in the recent month or so.

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.

[smooth]

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.

No I didn't. I think their technology is very interesting.

You're confusing push back against absurd hype like "wealth gains never seen in the history of mankind" (paraphasing) with missing the point of their technology. Not the same thing at all, in fact not even related. Go back and look at what I actually replied to instead of imagining it to be something it wasn't.

Overall CfB seems very reasonable and intelligent on that thread, and whoever is running that iotatoken nick comes off like a hype-spewing retard.

Any way, if he doesn't criticize me, I won't criticize him.

What the hell is the point of that? Tit for tat? Criticize me any time you like (especially if deserved).

Clickz, BTW, is an okay name. It is tied to web browsing and such, which might be fine, though perhaps a bit of a misnomer if the market expands broader and/or the desktop web itself becomes more of a niche. That may not matter if you have established it as a well known brand by that time, since eventually any brand just has its own meaning independent of the word. When people see Microsoft Windows they don't even consider the glass pane type of window any more. Originally, thought, the association was somewhat helpful (arguably).

[TPTB_need_war]

No I didn't. I think their technology is very interesting.

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?)

You're confusing push back against absurd hype like "wealth gains never seen in the history of mankind" (paraphasing) with missing the point of their technology.

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.

Not the same thing at all, in fact not even related. Go back and look at what I actually replied to instead of imagining it to be something it wasn't.

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

Overall CfB seems very reasonable and intelligent on that thread, and whoever is running that iotatoken nick comes off like a hype-spewing retard.

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.

Any way, if he doesn't criticize me, I won't criticize him.

What the hell is the point of that? Tit for tat? Criticize me any time you like (especially if deserved).

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.

Clickz, BTW, is an okay name. It is tied to web browsing and such, which might be fine, though perhaps a bit of a misnomer if the market expands broader and/or the desktop web itself becomes more of a niche.

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).

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

[Thenoticer]

Maybe the smallest unit of clickz is an ion.

As a random average person, clickz resonnates well with me. My vote is for clickz