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

[toThemJoy]

Clickz is the best from the provided options.
Throwing out other ideas to the community. In brackets possible meaning.
ClickBit (Click money), Talons (sounds cool), Time (universal unit of money), BitChrono (money time), TerraBit (earth money)

p.s. don't know why I associated Bit to Money :-)

[TPTB_need_war]

Naming the coin Time might imply ephemeral money that expires, but time can be captured in a more positive name...

After letting it all sink in, I've decided to go a different direction on the naming.

I've been trying to capture in the name several concepts in descending order of importance:

1.	Group agreement and coherence, i.e. consensus which is the entire point.
2.	Community synergy, group or network effects as the backing of value and purpose.
3.	Instantaneous.
4.	Technophile technological appeal.
5.	Intangible value.
6.	Permission-less, autonomous control.
7.	Value that is not too abstract to appreciate. Preferably not alien to technophobes.
8.	Fungible value.
9.	Locomotion store-of-value.

And one trait I do not want in a name:

↯	Similar phonetic misspellings.

Each of the proposed name ideas captured some of those concepts, but no one name captured all of them. Here they are tabulated by score ranking with ↯ breaking ties and contributing a significant negative score.

sync	+1, 2, 3, +4 (8 for syncoin)	≈5
vibe	1, +2, +5, 7	≈8
clickz	+3, 5, 6, +7, 9, ↯	≈2
ion	3, +4, 5, +9	≈6 for i-on
zing	+3, +5, 8, +9, ↯	≈2, ≈7
virtual	4, 5	≈8
metarial	5, ↯	≈4, ≈8

+ means very strong and direct association to the concept.
≈ means a weak or indirect association to the concept.

In the table above, 'clickz' although strong in the most attributes, is entirely lacking the most important point of coherent consensus [1] and the association to group synergy [2] (i.e. the alternative "get along well" definition of 'click' and the indirect association of clicking to social interaction in cyberspace) is weak (i.e. not likely emphasized and recognized by most). Also although 'clicks' is a cybergood that is well appreciated, and is fungible in the sense that a click can be applied to a myriad of things, it is not a universal good and thus pigeon-holes the applicability. It is an efficient/expedient means of relating for example microtransactions but at the cost of losing generality. Also it conflates the goods with the unit, e.g. "1.23 clicks" doesn't mean you get 1.23 opportunities to click a mouse. Examples of generality lost are block chain features such as BlocSign, digital assets, virtual contracts, and goods & services that have nothing to do with clicking such as making a phone call or paying a toll booth. Also 'clickz' has no strong appeal to futurists and technophiles. We justify as the optimum way to convey microtransactions, but is it really? If you are in a videochat, then you ask the person to send you some 'clickz' before you give English lessons. Seems that 'clickz' is not really general enough to be money. Facepalm me.

Since it is very difficult to find one name that hits all the desired attributes, I thought it may be better to have a separate names for the consensus network and the fungible value. It seems to be that 'sync' is the ideal name for the consensus network with block chain scaling, high TX/s, and block chain 2.0 features. Although it was used before, that Sync project appears to be dead or dying (even the coin domain syncclub.net links to some page in chinese), their domains never had just 'sync' nor 'syncoin' nor 'synccoin', and their use was for a colored coin (not their own block chain) and backed assets, thus I don't think they can claim trademark over the use as a block chain and no centralized backing.

Thus I am adding a new proposed name:

sync

For the name of the fungible items, we can choose between:

ions
syncs
syncoins
vibes
virtuals

I am leaning towards individual choice to use either 'syncs' or 'syncoins' for the largest unit, and then we need to choose the smallest unit. My preference for the smallest unit is either 'vibes' or 'virtuals'. Although 'virtuals' is more abstract and generalized, I think 'vibes' will make more sense to more people in a social networking setting. For a purely technical audience, 'ions' is great but the project name 'sync' already satiates the technophile demographic, so shouldn't we select a smallest unit that caters to the masses? Also 'vibes' is sort of wave-like or ambiance which is apt for the minute, particle-like quality of the smallest unit. If you are in a videochat, then you ask the person to send you some 'vibes' or 'syncoins' before you give English lessons, because 'ions' doesn't seem to have any natural (innate) meaning in that context.

If the smallest unit is a millionth of the largest unit and 1 billion large units are created, then in the extreme scenario of widespread adoption if the market cap is $1 trillion with an exchange price of $1000, then each smallest unit is priced at a thousandth of a dollar (a tenth of a penny or cent). In the less extreme scenario that corresponds to some mass adoption if the market cap is $1 billion with an exchange price of $1, then each smallest unit is priced at a millionth of a dollar. Disclaimer: these are not projections nor expectations of future value, rather scenarios that if reached would have the stated relationships.

In both of those scenarios the user can decide whether to quote the price in the largest or smallest units. Large units would always be expressed with a floating point number (number will a decimal portion) unless they are whole number multiples, and smallest units would be expressed with whole numbers and with 'k' appended to the number if the quantity has only zeros for the last three digits. So for example, one could alternatively quote a price as "1.23 sync(oin)s" or "1230k vibes". A micropayment could be quoted for example "0.000123 sync(oin)s" or "123 vibes".

We could allow values to be expressed in tenths, hundreds, or thousands of the smallest unit, to add more range without burdening the normal price quotation usage with extra digits.

I am visualizing a logo for 'sync' where the right side of the 'n' and the left side of the 'c' are interlocking gears. Or especially if using allcaps, then the 'C' has clock hands drawn inside of it.

The logo for 'vibe' will be a background of wavy lines (e.g. in black) with the word 'vibe' etched out as same color as the background (e.g. in white).

The logo for 'ion' would be an orbiting ion for the 'o' and a lightning bolt come from left, bottom, behind, and through the 'n' to the upper, right. The 'i' could optionally have the same treatment as for 'clickZ'.

For 'clickZ' I thought of making the dot on the 'i' have the "clicked" lines as I showed in the prior post at the finger point . The 'Z' would have the fast blurring trails effect I showed for the Downloadfast logo but in the transposed direction.

For 'virtual' the letters would take the places of the nodes shown on the network .

If we don't use ion (ion.cash domain), I will offer to donate this smooth (appreciation for all his interaction and help in the past) if he wishes to use it instead of Aeon. Or to another serious coin. It is a good name especially for a technology (technophile) focused coin.

Edit: I don't feel particularly great in my conscience in discovering that the name I like a lot 'sync' (which has been in mind for the past few days) was used before in another crypto project. However, generally speaking a trademark only applies globally if their venture had global reach and/or has the financial power to enforce their trademark. But this name was used for a project that hasn't gained any significant adoption, thus has nearly 0 reach nearly a year after launch. And the former project was apparently not even a block chain and only a colored coin on the Bitcoin block chain with some hokey idea of selling domain assets to back the colored coins. It appears to be failed concept (backed colored coin assets on a decentralized Bitcoin block chain), very minuscule reach, and not even precisely in the same category. What a shame to waste on a hokey concept, a great name for a block chain synchronicity innovation. Also since it appears to me to be an unregulated investment security, then I believe it is illegal, void, and thus vacated.

Edit#2: I am leaning at the moment very emphatically towards project name Sync (block chain revolution) with social media microunit of 'vibes', probably regardless what the votes say, unless I have a change of thinking. I have to let these names sit with me for some time to be sure I have thought through potential pitfalls.

[f2000]

I think ion and sync are the strongest names so far, Clickz/vibe/zing all sounds very dated. The best I have to offer is Privy.

When looking at the definition I thought I nailed it

Code:

adjective, privier, priviest.
1.
participating in the knowledge of something private or secret (usually followed by to):
Many persons were privy to the plot.
2.
private; assigned to private uses.
3.
belonging or pertaining to some particular person, especially with reference to a sovereign.
4.
secret, concealed, hidden, or secluded.
5.
acting or done in secret.

But unfortunately I forgot about this...

Code:

noun, plural privies.
6.
outhouse (def 1).

Others I wasnt too sure about but thought I would include them anyway

nutrino (Neutrinos)
tchyn / tak-ee-on (Tachyons)
Lumi (Superluminosity)
Indy (Independence? Might be boardline cheese)
01 (Would make for a nice logo, but not really enough)
Nero

Perhaps the abbreviation names are overused and sometimes hard to make out (which isn't exactly ideal for your company name) . Shame about Privy, sounds quite modern in a twitter/insta/snapchat kinda way.

[TPTB_need_war]

The best I have to offer is Privy.

I own that name (or maybe it is only Prvt which someone pointed out could be pervert lol, but I think I registered both and I started an Android app iPrivy in 2014 but stopped coding it). I should offer to one of the anonymous coins, such as BBR.

Please vote.

I think Sync is going to grow on you all over time. The block chain should always be in sync and not only every 10 minutes such as in Bitcoin. The programmable block chain should always be in sync without needing every mining node to verify every script (that was the key scaling design flaws of Ethereum).

[THX 1138]

...I've been trying to capture in the name several concepts in descending order of importance:

1.	Group agreement and coherence, i.e. consensus which is the entire point.
2.	Community synergy, group or network effects as the backing of value and purpose.
3.	Instantaneous.
4.	Technophile technological appeal.
5.	Intangible value.
6.	Permission-less, autonomous control.
7.	Value that is not too abstract to appreciate. Preferably not alien to technophobes.
8.	Fungible value.
9.	Locomotion store-of-value.

For what it's worth, I should mention that I spent three years writing a novel with a working title I was convinced on using all along, only for (IMO) the "right" one to pop into my head after I'd finished proofing.

I reckon you will probably vacillate on name choice for the coin all the way up to release, so maybe just go with anything for now as a working name?

Myself, I voted for Sync. It fits with the first two requirements in the list above, is short, and implies precision - which kind of fits with the block chain as you say below:

...I think Sync is going to grow on you all over time. The block chain should always be in sync and not only every 10 minutes such as in Bitcoin. The programmable block chain should always be in sync without needing every mining node to verify every script (that was the key scaling design flaw of Ethereum).

Maybe smaller denominations could utilize some of the other ideas for names, such as ions, nutrinos, (bosons?!) which I liked.  And as someone said upthread, we're just used to using the name Bitcoin; it's not very original, so would prefer nothing containing "coin" of "bit", and the "cyber" ones all seem a bit passé. "Clicklet" I originally misread as "Chicklit". And I had to laugh at "Privy"! Non-word letters could work; it never did DVD, VHS any harm.

BTW, for any future anonymous coins, I thought maybe "Veil" as an idea for one?

EDIT:

[TPTB_need_war]

Feeling a bit overbearing replying to every post. I should allow others to talk, but you wrote something I really want to respond to.

For what it's worth, I should mention that I spent three years writing a novel with a working title I was convinced on using all along, only for (IMO) the "right" one to pop into my head after I'd finished proofing.

I reckon you will probably vacillate on name choice for the coin all the way up to release, so maybe just go with anything for now as a working name?

In all my past projects, I really struggled (thrashed around) with the name same as what we've gone through in this thread, but once I settled on a name and become firm then it stuck. I can tell if I am firm by whether I find serious faults or start to feel a bit proud of the name. I prefer having a solid name when taking on a major effort (something about my creative/perfectionist personality can't put the naming to rest and it will continue eating at me until I feel satisfied).

I initially (and a bit too haphazardly given the groggy state of mind and rushing at some of the times) liked each of the prior names for a strong set of attributes (e.g. ion so terse, so geeky, so apt to micropays, so zappy) but then doubts started to creep in (ion is still a good coin name just doesn't fit the full scope of what I am contemplating). Clickz fell apart for me after initial enthusiasm because it just isn't fungible (pay me 'clicks' at the toll booth) and because none of those names were going to allow to go challenge the block chain 2.0 market as well as the micropay market. By combining "Sync" as project with "syncoin / smaller unit", I can get both the more professional name for the project, and fungible coin name when needed, and still play with the smallest unit to get a "fun" name that people can use in social networking, e.g. 'vibes', 'zings', 'oomphs', 'pluses', 'options', 'tradables', 'swaps', 'merits', or 'credits'.

Maybe smaller denominations could utilize some of the other ideas for names, such as ions, nutrinos, (bosons?!) which I liked.

So if we move away from having a social (mass market, technophobe) friendly small unit, then we can use a hitech smaller unit. But if must go hitech, I'd prefer it have at least some meaning for a technophobe, such as 'virtuals', 'mist', 'pulses', 'photons', or 'flashes'.

And I had to laugh at "Privy"!

My mother reminded me that was an outhouse back in the day.

BTW, for any future anonymous coins, I thought maybe "Veil" as an idea for one?

I like it or Mask, but also there was already Cloak. But I don't want to aim only for anonymity features because I want to build the system that I'd like to use for my future ventures on the internet in general. I still want the best anonymity in crypto though. For those coins that are currently focused on perfecting anonymity first (e.g. Monero, Boolberry), I was/am willing to help where I was needed (perhaps even ongoing on spot-time basis) and would be reasonably rewarded without having to go "all in" to their projects. I very much resist arrangements where I can't retain a lot of creative flexibility.

[hashtag101]

My only concern with syncoin is if users were to take off the "coin", and start calling them "syns" for short.

Maybe unlikely, just an observation is all.

Maybe I'm nuts, so if no one else sees this happening disregard.

Maybe I'm grasping at straws because I like Clickz so much 

[americanpegasus]

Inconvenient truths. 
 
Clickz sounds like some awful 90's rewards program like BonzaiBuddy. 

Ion sounds too much like aeon. 

Bittoken looks too much like bitbroken.

Cyber still carries a slightly negative connotation from back when it meant to have virtual sex (chat)

Sync might work, but Ford owns a trademark on that probably. 
 
Perhaps "links"?  "Credits"?  "Points"?

[TPTB_need_war]

Clickz sounds like some awful 90's rewards program like BonzaiBuddy.

Agreed it could convey that sort of association for some.

Inconvenient truths.

Ion sounds too much like aeon.

Didn't I write that up thread and also offer to donate the name to smooth (contingent on us finalizing a decision not to use it with my recent posts leaning very strongly to not using it)?

Why do you assume that if I wanted to pursue Ion that I couldn't compete and render Aeon to the lesser known coin (the hubris in your attitude irks me, typical of investors who think that they've been able to pool enough capital to defeat creativity and serendipity). But as I told smooth in a private message, I can't in good conscience continue with Ion because it is possible (quite likely in fact) that the idea for it was planted into my subconscious when I heard of Aeon. That still doesn't mean I am not entitled to the discovery of the shorter and more apt name, but I am not a sleazy person who has to get ahead by violating my ethics. I know I am creative and if I feel my creativity was not involved (instead a subconscious idea from someone else), then due to my desire for my creativity to be original as possible, I will prefer to donate Ion to its rightful owner.

What irks me is that after I made the offer to donate in the Aeon thread, you come over here and attack me on the name being too close. Have you no couth?

Sync might work, but Ford owns a trademark on that probably.

Inconvenient truth...

An automobile operating system can't normally claim trademark infringement from a crypto-currency, especially when the term being trademarked is a general common word from the English language and is already used by several software products on the internet:

http://www.uspto.gov/page/about-trademark-infringement

Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark on or in connection with goods and/or services in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods and/or services.

Btw, that is Ford Sync, not just Sync. It comes from Ford and is for vehicle media screens. There is no mistaking that with Sync.money nor syncoin.net, or perhaps we will name it "Sync network" or "Sync block chain" (domain name sync.run is already registered and could try to obtain sync.network or sync.net).

There are also BitTorrent Sync, Google Sync, Google Apps Sync, Firefox Sync, Sync | Secure Cloud Storage. Even that Sync cloud storage is not likely to be confused with a block chain network, because it is unlikely our decentralized block chain 2.0 would provide a bulk data storage functionality (and certainly not a centralized one as is that Sync cloud storage). BitTorrent Sync appears to be decentralized file transfer, but again this is BitTorrent Sync, not just Sync and file syncing isn't a competitive category to a block chain. Also with this many competitors on the use of the name Sync, it appears clear that no one can claim broad infringement categories. It appears the term Sync has been pretty much relegated to the public domain. If Ford was going to sue for infringement then these other uses of Sync would not likely exist and be establishing a precedent that weakens any claim Ford would have had.

Any more FUD from Monero/Aeon folk today?

[TPTB_need_war]

My only concern with syncoin is if users were to take off the "coin", and start calling them "syns" for short.

What is wrong with synthetics or synonyms? Are you phonetically saying "sins"? I am proposing that most people will use the smaller unit such as 'swaps' or 'zings' (because more "friendly", "fun" word) and the large coin until will only be used where people want to say 'syncoins'. Or if they are going to abbreviate it they would says 'syncs' because that is the name of the project Sync, not Syn.

Maybe I am preferring 'swaps' or 'zings' instead of 'vibes' for the smallest unit. Normally a payment is a swap of something for something. And 'zings' seems to rhyme with things thus fungible, and is more creative, fun and energetic way of stating a fungible notion.

zing

+3, +5, 8, +9, ↯

≈2, ≈7

Note misspellings of 'xings' wouldn't be major catastrophe for the smallest unit, as it would be for the project name. That 'zing' doesn't strongly nor moderately have #7 may be more of a positive in terms of granting more fungibility in terms of its use as the smallest unit.

[TPTB_need_war]

I also registered BlocSync.net and BlocSync.space so that there is always an option against any trademark infringement allegation. If we start off using Sync under the justifiable belief that no entity can trademark Sync for broad use cases that did not comprise their use case, and if somehow that assumption ends up not being true under some wild twist of injustice, then we can change the name to BlocSync. And in that case, users will likely continue to refer to it as Sync, Syncoin, or Sync money.

P.S. note I edited my prior reply to americanpegasus to more accurately convey (the bolded text) the point I was actually thinking but didn't articulate well previously.

[maincoin]

Voted for clickz!

[TPTB_need_war]

I have a new idea for the smallest unit (which may become the most widely used unit given the potential microtransactions focus), where English speakers could use 'zen' and Chinese/Japanese could use 'chan' (ch'an). Or any person could use either. The thinking behind this is that massive convergence between the youthful westerners and the Asians coming over the next 2 decades, as Armstrong's models clearly say that Asia (Singapore and Shanghai) will the financial capital of the world by 2032 (replacing respectively London and New York). The prediction is the west will collapse economically and socially, and the wealth will be in Asia. We can see this trend in motion with Europe's migrancy crisis (and a sovereign debt volcano that is soon to blow taking down major European banks). And Asia starting to lead the pop culture with for example the Korean sensation PSY and his one-hit wonder Gangnam style which swept across the USA.

I think ion and sync are the strongest names so far, Clickz/vibe/zing all sounds very dated.

I think Asian culture is coming more into vogue/fad and a "new" curiosity for westerners (and anyone not Asian, including Latin Americans, Africans, and Middle Easterners). China practically took over Peru in the past decade as I am confident OROBTC will attest. Thus instead of rehashing old terms, we could be on the forefront. However, Zen has been overused amongst internet startups, so really the 'chan' (ch'an) is the innovative term. There are 1.3 billion Chinese and they are the growing more wealthy (the future). Also Asian like something humorous and silly/cute (see the Gangnam video linked above and get some insight into Asia humor and love of cute colors such as pinks and yellows). Heck maybe we should use 'gangnams' for the smallest unit (although have to be careful not to offend the Japanese or Chinese/Koreans who apparently do not like each other, yet clearly one should prioritize the Chinese over the Japanese).

Zen
noun
1.
Chinese Ch'an. Buddhism. a Mahayana movement, introduced into China in the 6th century a.d. and into Japan in the 12th century, that emphasizes enlightenment for the student by the most direct possible means, accepting formal studies and observances only when they form part of such means.

zen = enlightenment = (in Chinese) ch'an

Note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_honorifics

Chan (ちゃん ?) is a diminutive suffix; it expresses that the speaker finds a person endearing. In general, chan is used for babies, young children, grandparents and teenagers. It may also be used towards cute animals, lovers, close friends, any youthful woman, or between friends.

http://www.sljfaq.org/afaq/titles.html

Chan (ちゃん) is a form of san used to refer to children and female family members, close friends and lovers. The change from san to chan is typical of a kind of "baby talk" in Japanese where "sh" sounds are turned into "ch" sounds, such as chitchai for chiisai, "small".

Chan is also used for adults who are considered to be kawaii (cute or loveable). For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger gained the nickname Shuwa-chan (シュワちゃん).

Chan is sometimes applied to male children if the name does not fit with the kun suffix. For example, a boy called Tetsuya may be nicknamed Tetchan rather than Tekkun for reasons more to do with phonetics than anything else.

Although it is usually said that honorifics are not applied to oneself, some women refer to themselves in the third person using chan.

[americanpegasus]

Didn't I write that up thread and also offer to donate the name to smooth (contingent on us finalizing a decision not to use it with my recent posts leaning very strongly to not using it)?

Why do you assume that if I wanted to pursue Ion that I couldn't compete and render Aeon to the lesser known coin (the hubris in your attitude irks me, typical of investors who think that they've been able to pool enough capital to defeat creativity and serendipity). But as I told smooth in a private message, I can't in good conscience continue with Ion because it is possible (quite likely in fact) that the idea for it was planted into my subconscious when I heard of Aeon. That still doesn't mean I am not entitled to the discovery of the shorter and more apt name, but I am not a sleazy person who has to get ahead by violating my ethics. I know I am creative and if I feel my creativity was not involved (instead a subconscious idea from someone else), then due to my desire for my creativity to be original as possible, I will prefer to donate Ion to its rightful owner.

What irks me is that after I made the offer to donate in the Aeon thread, you come over here and attack me on the name being too close. Have you no couth?

.
 
Dude, my talents are advertising and branding.  I'm not trying to FUD you, and could care less if you called your coin Ion.  I'm trying to give you a free gift of opinion because it's difficult to see your own project objectively. 
 
Learn when to differentiate between when someone is genuinely trying to attack you vs. trying to help you in a coarse manner. 
 
To date, I still don't own any aeon.  I find that I have accidentally fell into helping with it, but I certainly don't feel enough brand loyalty to try to "FUD" anyone, certainly not over a similar sounding name. 
 
Also, you need to look into the discussion about DAG over on the technical board; they are proposing something that sounds a lot like your system.  Wish you luck, and hope you will consider integrating your math into an existing blockchain - greed and ego may insist you do not, but both of these traits will be useless in the upcoming world.

[TPTB_need_war]

Dude, my talents are advertising and branding.

Then you should understand trademark law and not make a silly statement that belies understanding of trademark law (and lack of even a google search to see how many entities use Sync). Had you not added the condescending "Inconvenient truths...", then I wouldn't have been irked and just assumed you were rushed. But when someone is condescending, they have an extra burden to write correct statements, especially now we learn this is your claimed area of expertise.

I'm trying to give you a free gift of opinion because it's difficult to see your own project objectively.

I appreciate that.

What I don't appreciate are Monero crowd who seem to think they have a monopoly on the future of altcoins. I prefer to give respect to each other and let everyone innovative, compete, and share where it is synergistic. If we can do that, I then have no reason to be irked.

Learn when to differentiate between when someone is genuinely trying to attack you vs. trying to help you in a coarse manner.

It is difficult to discern that when people insert challenges to mutual respect, such as "inconvenient truths...". Of course no one is perfectly objective all the time, so it helps just to be respectful when making a suggestion. Notice how when I tried to give you a heads up on the risks of promoting crypto investment securities, I was very respectful, but you took a stab at me (though you appeared to make it a joke, yet at my expense, so let it go but did flag it as a potential sign of an ego problem). After you continued on, I was forced to become a bit more forceful, yet I was not trying to lose respect, while I was put in an undesirable position because you were refusing to take the time to understand what is covered in detail already (I don't like having to repeat myself too many times because of the cost of my time), so either I had to ignore or invest considerable more time to explain (than I wanted to invest in that on your behalf because I think I already explained it).
 

To date, I still don't own any aeon.  I find that I have accidentally fell into helping with it, but I certainly don't feel enough brand loyalty to try to "FUD" anyone, certainly not over a similar sounding name.  
  
Also, you need to look into the discussion about DAG over on the technical board; they are proposing something that sounds a lot like your system.

I have been all over that thread and even asking technical challenges they can't adequately answer and suggesting how to make their technology work correctly.

greed and ego may insist you do not

Again your condescending incorrect assumptions about me in general and my motivations in particular exhibit something about your "shoot from the hip" before doing adequate verification and research style that is becoming apparent in numerous examples.

I have explained numerous times that an existing block chain can not work with my design, and The Mythical Man Month when dealing with spontaneous iterative design creativity means it is much more likely to be more efficient to do it myself than be bogged down in a swamp of communications which is the case with any group effort.

It is also about retaining my creative flexibility. It is also about not throwing pearls at swine, meaning don't prematurely destroy value that can be used to fund and drive more creativity.

My job now is to teach you all a lesson about which stage open source excels and which it doesn't.

Really the issue is your ego (as evident by the joke you made at my expense which is linked above), not mine. I have explained this up thread by quoting Eric Raymond's essay "Ego is for little people", yet as usual I am incited to repeat myself. I am just going to have to learn to ignore those "little people" who have the ego problem Eric explained. Sorry that is not an egotistical statement. Suggest you read his essay.

Edit: note it isn't really a big deal. We can just let slide off our backs. I can respect you. I really don't prefer to cultivate acrimony and disharmonious ambiance (drags on my preferred cheerful, optimistic, passionate outlook).

[americanpegasus]

My shoot from the hip intelligence is picking up (assuming) that you intend to launch this coin closed source, and without inviting others to help you develop it.  
  
If my assumptions are correct, I request you carefully consider several examples of n-pirate strategy regarding artificial assets.  Ask yourself why "closed source" government, languages, and religions haven't been successful in the past, because I think there is much wisdom to be found in these lessons.  
  
I can tell you that no idea created to exist as a social network between humans (and money is one such network) can propagate from nothingness without other humans getting passionate your idea and making it their own.  
  
The current US Government we have today isn't the same as hundreds of years ago, and that's the beauty of it - they recognized they might not get everything right, and included consensus mechanisms to change their decisions.  The best languages and religions have also evolved in this way - the original, open source idea has been adopted and molded by a large number of subsequent users and as a result has proven extremely resilient.  
  
But do whatever you want.  
  
I know as far as I go, I didn't join Monero because it has a closed system requiring me to place trust in any single entity.  If I wanted to be a core developer, and had the skills/dedication to make those commits, that path is open to me - as it is to anyone who comes after me.  I think that's a crucial element of a successful financial network.  
 
But you are welcome to prove me wrong; it would be interesting to see. 

[TPTB_need_war]

My shoot from the hip intelligence is picking up (assuming) that you intend to launch this coin closed source, and without inviting others to help you develop it.

Incorrect assumption. I could see perhaps keeping some source code for the full nodes (obviously it doesn't make much sense to close the light client source code) closed for a very short period of time if that proves necessary to gain sufficient moment so the project will have enough users and not be siphoned off by copycats. But of course to get to open source and collaboration with other developers asap is a critical need and priority. I already wrote in the other Ion thread that I had tried in June and July to formulate working relationships with other developers to co-develop the coin (and smooth was one of the developers I courted), but the problems that arose around differences of opinion and strategy (and just "culture"), thus I realized I was losing more time searching for amenable and compatible developers than I would gain by simply coding and not wasting time (arguing as I am doing here and now). Also it is very difficult to get the funding aligned with co-developers. Smooth I think has the situation he wants with Aeon, so why interfere when all I have at the moment is vaporware. I didn't want to be responsible to another person who has already good opportunities. Even I asked Iota about collaboration but when it became clear there are 3 of them (mouths to feed) already and one is a marketer and one is only a mathematician, then I agreed to end that idea immediately. They are better off to continue to sell a pump to investors as appears they are planning to do (they can raise more $ that way and fund their Jinn hardware strategy or at least that is their stated justification). My strategy is not to pump up the crowd sale, and to aim for user adoption as the focus. From that, everything else follows in spades.

[americanpegasus]

You need an internet-free "writer's cave".  
  
And likely some form of focus-based nootropic.  
  
I'm just guessing though.  

[TPTB_need_war]

You need an internet-free "writer's cave".  
  
And likely some form of focus-based nootropic.  
  
I'm just guessing though.  

Yup. Astute. I lose too much time on these forums. Self-imposed shut down to foruming is approaching. Need to finish my analysis of Iota and eMunie first.

[TPTB_need_war]

Appears I can cross Iota off my list of competing technologies.

Contrary to my initial upthread enthusiasm, I am leaning towards this DAG concept can not work because it appears to attempt to defeat the CAP (Brewer's) Theorem. Before I was thinking the multiple branches are orthogonal, but it becomes clearer from the game theory issues quoted above, that there are complex dependencies. Analogous issues as the following appear to apply to DAG:

Hard to tell what you mean without knowing what you have sacrificed - C, A or P.

For example to deal with the double-spend attack stdset has been discussing, to maintain consistency and access you must do something to "fence off" partitions (branches) and give up P.

The block chain creates one partition which is the longest chain. Thus it can maintain C and A. You will have to give up one of C, A, or P. The promise of DAG was to not give up any of those.

I think you can make DAG work but you will end up with divergent partions that can't be remerged (thus losing global consistency of value), same as what will happens to Bitcoin if it is forked (even by network partitioning).

This is a serious fundamental theorem that all of us designing consensus algorithms face.

I think you can make DAG work but you will end up with divergent partions that can't be remerged

Why? If there are no conflicting tx's, someone can issue a tx referencing 1 tx from partition 1 and 1 tx from partition 2, et voila.

Due the quoted Prisoner's Dilemma that I outlined (for which I believe your response was inadequate for the following reason) in that no one has an incentive to be first to lengthen the tips, the game theory is going to devolve to everyone agreeing to blacklist double-spends without actually abandoning branches containing conflicting transactions where they have transactions.The Prisoner's Dilemma is only solved in favor of lengthening if double-spends won't cause a branch to be illegitimate. Thus the branches will diverge while they lengthen. Your preferred algorithm will not hold over time. CAP's theorem is guidance, and now you just need to model it or put it into the wild and observe.

You might try to formulating some fencing or "longest-path" algorithm, but you are just going to end up back at a block chain (giving up Partition tolerance) once you have solved the Consistency and Access issues.

Any way if I am wrong, then kindly be the first to disprove the CAP theorem. Good luck with that.

It's silly to build a distributed system violating CAP theorem, in no circumstances anyone of us would even attempt that, it's the same as trying to fly faster than speed of light.

Okay what did you give up: C, A, or P? Remember you said I am wrong, so surely you can answer this very quickly right 

CfB and mthcl, the onus is on you to prove and demonstrate what you have given up from the CAP theorem. You have not. Period.

The block chain creates one partition which is the longest chain. Thus it can maintain C and A [but gives up on P]. You will have to give up one of C, A, or P.