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

[trollercoaster]

Using Chan for the smallest unit is actually a good idea, it's fun, and kids have been learning Japanese and Chinese languages in school over the last 20 years.

I don't think it turns your coin into a meme coin by using that as the smallest unit.

 These cultures are going to begin to dominate again as confidence shifts towards Asia, especially among the kids growing up today with video game culture, cartoons, etc.

[americanpegasus]

Using Chan for the smallest unit is actually a good idea, it's fun, and kids have been learning Japanese and Chinese languages in school over the last 20 years.

I don't think it turns your coin into a meme coin by using that as the smallest unit.

 These cultures are going to begin to dominate again as confidence shifts towards Asia, especially among the kids growing up today with video game culture, cartoons, etc.

 
  
Wow, that's actually a really good idea.  If he doesn't do it, I'll suggest that we do.  Lots of nerdy terms quickly penetrate the mainstream once the mainstream has a reason to use them.  Think of all the nerdy 90's slang that is just an accepted part of the vernacular today. 

[THX 1138]

Using Chan for the smallest unit is actually a good idea, it's fun, and kids have been learning Japanese and Chinese languages in school over the last 20 years.

I don't think it turns your coin into a meme coin by using that as the smallest unit.

 These cultures are going to begin to dominate again as confidence shifts towards Asia, especially among the kids growing up today with video game culture, cartoons, etc.

 
Wow, that's actually a really good idea.  If he doesn't do it, I'll suggest that we do.  Lots of nerdy terms quickly penetrate the mainstream once the mainstream has a reason to use them.  Think of all the nerdy 90's slang that is just an accepted part of the vernacular today. 

Yeah, I like it too.

Feel a new poll coming on

[TPTB_need_war]

Defining the parameters (CAP theorem) by which block chain scaling designs should be analyzed:

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.

Consistency is weakened to eventual.

To make sure we are on the same page: what is partition tolerance and availability of Bitcoin?

If Consistency is weakened to eventual, then either you have no defined Consistency (i.e. no Consistency ever) or you have an equation for probability of Consistency. If there exists such an equation, then you have to explain how and the probability of either Availability or Partition tolerance is lost when the probability of Consistency is attained. The onus is on your to justify these claims analytically, including convincing arguments about the game theory. Else you can just put it into the wild and observe (and who knows what will happen).


Consistency in Bitcoin is the fact that the objectivity is the longest chain. There only state of inconsistency is the probability of an orphaned chain, which declines over time except if the adversary has greater than 50% of the sustained network proof-of-work hashrate.

Availability in Bitcoin is given by even if there are no other active nodes, then sender and/or recipient of the transaction can extend the longest chain and the Consistency remains valid (except for the caveats on Consistency).

Partition tolerance is lost in Bitcoin because if there is network partitioning then double-spends can occur on each chain without being detected until these chains are merged. Bitcoin can't tolerate multiple chains, and only allows the longest chain.  There is no way to merge these chains, because double-spends can infect other downstream transactions, combined with inputs from legitimate transaction graphs.

So what we can say is Bitcoin fulfills the CAP theorem, except it has theoretically unnecessary caveats in Consistency due to 51% attack and delay due to probability of orphaned chains, which are due to the ephemeral Partition tolerance that is introduced by chain reorganization. The Consistency delay also causes transaction confirmation to be significantly delayed. The goals of my Sync (or BlocSync) block chain overhauled design has been to eliminate those caveats, while relaxing the Consistency and/or Availability during partitioning of the network in order to provide some Partition tolerance.

And please stop randomly citing Big Important Theorems that have only a vague connection to what we are discussing. In academic circles such behaviour is not welcome.

If the CAP theorem is random to Byzantine fault tolerance for networks, then we might as well say the speed-of-light is an irrelevant fact when doing Physics.

[TPTB_need_war]

Using Chan for the smallest unit is actually a good idea, it's fun, and kids have been learning Japanese and Chinese languages in school over the last 20 years.

I don't think it turns your coin into a meme coin by using that as the smallest unit.

 These cultures are going to begin to dominate again as confidence shifts towards Asia, especially among the kids growing up today with video game culture, cartoons, etc.

 
  
Wow, that's actually a really good idea.  If he doesn't do it, I'll suggest that we do.  Lots of nerdy terms quickly penetrate the mainstream once the mainstream has a reason to use them.  Think of all the nerdy 90's slang that is just an accepted part of the vernacular today.  

Branding. I had also thought of 'codes', e.g. "Send/pay me 5 codes", which is safer in terms of comprehension and aversion but less potentially trendy/branded. Yet using 'codes' as money would be a first, so would have some trendy/branding effect.

Yet 'chan' meaning Zen enlightenment or some friendly ambiguous concept that becomes 'social interchange', is the potential to create a new global concept (brand) in the midst of this emergent interchange of East and West culture.

Hmm...

Note we need different units for different tokens on the Sync network, because for example at some point we might create a token that is pegged to BTC if Blockstream's side-chains ever become a reality. Or we might create tracking tokens which are kept in close proximity of their target value with options (these theoretically incur some losses over time compared to a side-chain peg). And other assets on the network.

[TPTB_need_war]

So the plural of 'chan' would be 'chan' because 'chans' doesn't sound right. When I said "pay me 5 chans", my filipina gf gave me silence, a frown face and look of bewilderment (and a hug for feeling sorry that she didn't get it). Later I said, "'pay me 5 chan' doesn't sound right". She replied, "oh I thought you meant 'chans', 'chan' is okay like Jackie Chan", then she opened a big smile as the thought of Jackie Chan permeated her emotions. Filipinos aren't oriental Asian (white Asian), more a mix of Malay, Latin, Asian, and American. Filipinos are good judge of what is catchy, because they are extremely social and creative. If you go into a gaming internet cafe, you can hear the boys have invented all sorts of new language as they yell at each other.

It is possible that 'chan' might connote 'change' (as in the small coinage received in change from a transaction) for some people, which is a reasonably appropriate association for micro-payments.

As for another poll, I think we will let the current one run for a while. Unless there are any more really great ideas for the overall network, then I think we've got a cross-section of genres of names in the current poll. I really think Sync (or BlocSync) works the best for a block chain scaling network. The units of the default token for this network can be Sync(oin) for the major unit (which hopefully people won't use in micro-transactions and social interchange scenarios) and then we have only remaining to choose the name for smaller unit. And remember I won't make this as small as a satoshi, so that e.g. 1230k chan (or 1230 kchan, pronounced ka-chan) works as a way to express typical values, then to go smaller than the smaller unit you use a fraction, e.g. 0.0123 chan.

On my health, I am taking so many anti-oxidants, and immune system support supplements, that it seems I want to sleep all the time. This is not the head fog (chronic fatigue syndrome) with gut pain and waking up fatigued, instead feels like rejuvenating, deep sleep. But it seems my body just wants more of it. So this appears to be a good sign and my abdominal pain is becoming more infrequent and more faint. But damn I want to sleep always, so can't really work. Hopefully this desire to sleep so much won't last too long. Rangedriver had suggested to me Niacin to dilate the small blood vessels in the fatty tissue to gain the circulation to chelate out any mycotoxins. Also I have read the glutathione is also thought to be critical to the body's ability to cleanse out toxins and keep the various immune and other systems in balance and to restore balance (and I am taking ALA and NAC to recycle and build glutathione). Also EGCG (from decaf green tea) is a powerful anti-oxidant that is also implicated as a solution. I had noticed that my B Healthy coenzymated B-complex has only 10mg of Niacin and 40mg of Niacinamide. Niacinamide doesn't dilate the blood vessels and 10mg of Niacin is ridiculously inadequate (need up to 1500mg per day for detoxification). There are many other details, don't have time to write down (nor wish to burden you the reader with) everything I've read.

Here is my current daily regimen:

100mg Doxycycline 2x daily (24 days completed, I might stop soon this Chlamydia Pneumoniae treatment since I may not have that bacteria)
250mg Azithromycin bidaily (same duration as the doxcycline)
500mg Metronidazole 2x daily (5 days completed 19 days ago, haven't restarted the monthly pulsing of this)
300mg Alpha-Lipoic Acid 2x daily (ALA)
600mg N-Acetyl Cysteine 2x daily (NAC)
100mg Niacin 2x daily (may increase dosage as tolerated)
500mg EGCG extract (250mg EGCG content, decaf, and must take on empty stomach else useless)
400mg Magnesium 1x daily (from amino acid chelate, citrate, malate, along with 222mg malic acid)
20,000 IU Vitamin D3 daily
14 billion probiotics bacteria daily (PB-8 brand)
Daily Coenzymated B Healthy brand b-complex (50mg B1 as Thiamine Mononitrate, 50mg B2 as R-5-P, 250mg B5 as D-calcium Pathothenate, 50mg B6 as P-5-P, 500mcg B12 as Methylcobalamin, 400mcg Folic Acid as L-5 Methyltetrahydrofolate, 300mcg Biotin)

Also 3 meals daily of dark green wild grown leafy veggies (Kale or of that the sort) slightly cooked in coconut milk soup (sometimes with curry powder and potatoes). And eating only baby tuna fried (very high Omega 3). With 1/3 to 1/2 cup of cooked white rice per meal.

That is all I am eating. And water of course.

[tzpardi]

Cybit sounds a good name to me.

[TPTB_need_war]

Cybit sounds a good name to me.

Thanks. Note:

* cybit has trademark issues.

[TPTB_need_war]

Conceptualization of block chain scaling tradeoffs:

If Consistency is weakened to eventual, then either you have no defined Consistency (i.e. no Consistency ever) or you have an equation for probability of Consistency. If there exists such an equation, then you have to explain how and the probability of either Availability of Partition tolerance is lost when the probability of Consistency is attained. The onus is on your to justify these claims analytically, including convincing arguments about the game theory. Else you can just put it into the wild and observe (and who knows what will happen).

I don't agree with the red part, it's impossible to have an equation for probability (has anyone ever had it?) because it depends on network topology which is infeasible to measure (it even changes every minute).

Consistency in our case is the probability of a double-spend (and the inability to reverse a record of a completed transaction, which is involved in the same probability), since that is the only consistency that we need. Consistency of topology seems to be irrelevant as a direct metric of any consistency that concerns the goal of the consensus.

Your white paper provides an equation for that probability with examples on page 14.

But afaik, you have not yet characterized how A or P declines as the probability of a double-spend declines. Additionally it is not clear if the equation is proven and one potential path towards validating it is to be able to relate analytically how A and P are affected as that probability changes.

Consistency in Bitcoin is the fact that the objectivity is the longest chain. There only state of inconsistency is the probability of an orphaned chain, which declines over time except if the adversary has greater than 50% of the sustained network proof-of-work hashrate.

Bitcoin has eventual consistency, probability of an orphaned chain has nothing to do with it unless you consider the case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum.

The probability of a double-spend is given by the probability of a chain being orphaned.

It seems the difference in our thinking is you have not yet formulated a metric of consistency relevant to our application of network consensus (a.k.a. Byzantine fault tolerance and coherence). It is all about the double-spending prevention, and <joke>not the bass</joke>.

Availability in Bitcoin is given by even if there are no other active nodes, then sender and/or recipient of the transaction can extended the longest chain and the Consistency remains valid (except for the caveat of the 51% attack).

Availability in Bitcoin is nine nines, ability to extend the longest chain is irrelevant there.

Ah I am a conceptual (abstract) thinker. You are thinking as a low-level network engineer, thus you miss the generative essence of how CAP applies. The availability of the P2P network is really irrelevant conceptually to how CAP relates to the goal of the consensus network— to order transactions in time and prevent (or record and blacklist) double-spends. Thus availability in the relevant conceptual context is the ability to extend the chain AUTONOMOUSLY. If for example in any alternative design the chain could only be extended after tallying a quorum, then availability would require a quorum to be present. The reason that proof-of-work is such an elegant solution to the Byzantine Generals issue, is because the solution is generated by autonomous actors (and thus the entropy of the system is open and not closed).

Until you understand conceptually, you can't begin to understand block chain scaling holistically.

And now I am giving away too much of my expertise for free to a potential competitor to my work. So I will need to stop. I had suggested we work together, because I had been thinking about these issues for a long time and I thought your DAG might offer some unique aspects towards formulating a holistic design for various CAP tradeoff scenarios. But now I need to see more analytical justification of your design before applying any more of my effort. The ball is now in your court. Knowing how people react to my statements, apologies in advance if this seems egotistical to any one, then they need to read this (meaning it would their ego and not mine, I am just stating objectively what I think...no ego involved).

Partition tolerance is lost in Bitcoin because if there is network partitioning then double-spends can occur on each chain without being detected until these chains are merged. Bitcoin can't tolerate multiple chains, and only allows the longest chain.  There is no way to merge these chains, because double-spends can infect other downstream transactions, combined with inputs from legitimate transaction graphs.

Partition tolerance in Bitcoin is pretty high, this is achieved with the help of coinbase maturity parameter, if it was set to zero we would see more transactions not reincluded into the longest chain after a reorg.

Agreed.

So what we can say is Bitcoin fulfills the CAP theorem, except it has theoretically unnecessary caveats in Consistency due to 51% attack and delay due to probability of orphaned chains. The Consistency delay also causes transaction confirmation to be significantly delayed. The goals of my Sync (or BlocSync) block chain overhauled design has been to eliminate those caveats, while relaxing the Consistency and/or Availability during partitioning of the network in order to provide some Partition tolerance.

51% attack is an attack for another case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum. Ittay Eyal and Emin Gun Sirer showed that Bitcoin can be successfully attacked even with 33%/25% of hashing power.

I already showed mathematically how to defeat the selfish mining attack.

PS: Looks like we are NOT on the same page. I suggest to spend one day to come to a common denominator of our points of view and after that continue discussion about tangle and CAP.

My stance (unless something shatters my perspective) is that it is now up to you all to formulate more compelling holistic explanation/characterization of your DAG within the context of the CAP theorem, and also provide analytical models.

I don't think I am being paid nor am I a team member, so therefor I shouldn't be trying to dig into the details of that. I have provided what I believe to be the relevant conceptual framework (you may disagree). And I have work to do on my own block chain scaling technology.

Good luck. I'll check back sometimes on progress.

[TPTB_need_war]

Oh my. I will indeed have to learn that sharing expertise has its downsides. And sometimes it is better to say nothing.

One more time I will help you, although the wisest action from a competitive standpoint would have been for me to not respond and let you continue with your perspective.

Consistency in our case is the probability of a double-spend (and the inability to reverse a record of a completed transaction, which is involved in the same probability), since that is the only consistency that we need. Consistency of topology seems to be irrelevant as a direct metric of any consistency that concerns the goal of the consensus.

Let's start from this point.

I find your definition of "consistency" unsuitable for cryptocurrency analysis. I could create millions different instances of a ledger in such a way that they can be merged into a single instance without a single double-spending at all. Do we see consistency in such the case (before merging)? Obviously, not.

Obviously yes, if we agree that consistency of disallowing double-spends into the ledger and not reversing the time ordering of transactions is our desired consistency.

Note that CAP theorem is used on a more abstract level than the level of account balances. I can imagine a perfectly consistent distributed system (by sacrificing A and P) which sees all double-spends that have ever happened. If we use your definition of "consistency" then we'll get an absurd result. I suggest to stay away of home-made definitions because they will lead to profanation of Brewer's theorem and won't let us to do a proper analysis.

That is quite an absurd proposition you have made to say that eliminating the prevention of double-spends and allowing reversal of time ordering of transactions amongst differing graphs seen globally as being some useful form of consistency. There are no decisions that can be made from such mayhem. No one can decide who owns what. That is consistency   

Once you agree with me on the above we'll move to the next point.

Obviously I don't agree with such absurd nonsense. Sorry but I find the hubris in the way you phrased your nonsense ("home-made", "profanation") to deserve an equal reaction.

[americanpegasus]

Dude, ComeFromBeyond and you are like antiparticles. 
 
If you continue to engage him in an argument, in thirty years you'll have a very productive comment chain and nothing to show for it. 
 
I'm not 100% sold on the DAG proposal, and especially less on the IOTA presale but I recognize I'm just going to be banging my head against a wall continuing to antagonize those guys.

[trafficolaa]

I have voted to clickz / clix i think that looks more realistic as like some other people voted there, i would like to more details about this upcoming anon coins what specification will be for it?

[TPTB_need_war]

I have voted to clickz / clix i think that looks more realistic as like some other people voted there, i would like to more details about this upcoming anon coins what specification will be for it?

Thanks for your comment. Comments help me discern what voters are thinking. There are no bad comments, because they always clarify.

Anonymity is not the priority feature I am aiming for now (will add anonymity also eventually). I am focused on block chain improvements such as higher TX/s, scaling of the block chain so it doesn't become centralized as blocks grow large (as is the case in the current debate about Bitcoin block size increase from 1MB to 8MB), and also to add some partition tolerance so that if the internet becomes partitioned then coins can't be spent on every partition as is the case for Bitcoin.

Do not expect any technical details nor a testnet result soon. I am just getting back to coding, after reaching a crisis in my health in August and September.

I understand that many people who voted are initially attracted to clickz / clix (or ion) because those mesh with what people here seem to think is catchy for themselves and the people they know.

I understand a project named Sync / BlocSync sounds boring. But really this is for a very serious overhaul of Bitcoin's fundamental consensus network, and aiming towards block chain 2.0 type features eventually, so we need a serious business name for it.

I am proposing to put the catchy name on the units of the token instead. If we name the token "clicks" and so the person who wants to get paid says, "please pay me 5 clicks", it really doesn't make sense. How can I pay someone "clicks", does that mean I have to click my mouse 5 times? Actually in a micro-transaction you would be paying to click and receiving money by allowing clicks (i.e. not paying in clicks). To click and enter a site, you need to pay something to enter. I suppose one might earn some payments by clicking, such as clicking some captchas or in some game where you earn points.

A few of us have liked the word 'chan' for the currency name. "Please pay me 5 chan". Now I know that sounds ridiculous at first, but new terms are sometimes how you become very unique and branded if the usage catches on and becomes popular. "Chan" is sounding Asian and is the last name of the famous actor's screen name Jackie Chan. In Chinese, "ch-an" means "enlightenment", which sort of cool thing to pay in. Chinese are very much into systems of exchange and culture where you gain knowledge.

If the creators of Dogecoin had done a poll, I am confident Dogecoin would not have won the poll. Yet look how well the concept worked and branded in the market. Sometimes polls need to be ignored. But I am trying to explain and get synergy with the readers and voters here. I am reading all your posts with interest and trying to learn what is in your minds. It is not impossible that I would be swayed, especially as I learn more about your perspective.

[Thenoticer]

BlocSync might be setting yourself up.

Several technologies are just acronyms.

Cd

Vhs

Hdmi

Am/fm



BlocSync -------bs?


Edit.
 Better Than Bitcoin-------- btb

Blockchain improvements ---------bci

Edit
Payable ion clicks.   ---------pic
Payable internet money --------pim
Etc

[TPTB_need_war]

BlocSync -------bs?

If we go with that name then I prefer Sync over BlocSync any way. BlocSync is just in case users get confused as to what Sync is or does, or if there is a trademark hassle with Sync. I also registered Syncoin.net.

The other companies that use Sync can't claim trademark except where our use would create confusion over which product was referred to. The Ford Sync vehicle media operating system would not be confused with a Sync network for block chains. The Sync cloud storage and Bitorrent's Sync cloud file exchange don't claim trademark infringement against each other, so how can they justify an infringement claim against our use for a decentralized token and block chain.

I have had another idea in my back pocket since 2014. I actually named an early version of one my proof-of-work hashes this name. I've done a bit of research on the trademark and it appears it is the same situation as Sync, where no company can claim a broad trademark:

http://piratedthoughts.com/dc-comics-fighting-to-protect-the-shazam-trademark/
http://community.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?28326-Any-copyright-over-shazam-word&p=819977#post819977
https://www.shazam.net/MRTrademarkUsage.html
http://www.shazam.com/company

If we have trademark hassles, we could use 'shaazam' instead.

Thus I propose a new name choice, which actually might work for both the network name and the coin unit:

shazam

If we don't use it for the network name (i.e. use Sync instead), then we could use 'shazam' for the smallest unit instead of 'chat' or the others.

If we use Shazam as the network name, then we could use 'shazam' for the largest unit. Then the smallest unit could remain 'chan' (or one of the others) because I sort of like the 'ka-chan' for 'kilochan'.

Shazam means magical and instantaneous.

sha·zam
SHəˈzam/
exclamation
    used to introduce an extraordinary deed, story, or transformation.

I propose another name choice and an interesting domain is available for it:

vortech (vorte.ch)

[TPTB_need_war]

If we use Shazam as the network name, then we could use 'shazam' for the largest unit. Then the smallest unit could remain 'chan' (or one of the others) because I sort of like the 'ka-chan' for 'kilochan'.

ka-chan reminds me of ka-ching.

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

I am really liking 'ka-ching' as the smallest unit when you want to say 'kiloching' (1000 ching) and just 'ching' otherwise.

And that sounds Asian but sort of derogatorily so?

People like their money to arrive immediately like magic. Shazam! And they like when they've got it. Ka-ching.

[rangedriver]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Leave the logic and the reason for the code itself.

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.

[trollercoaster]

Another suggestion for the smallest unit, (爱 Ai) translates to love in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, possibly others.

[TPTB_need_war]

Someone asked me in a private message if I have compared my planned (currently vaporware) design to Factom.

There are some key distinctions between my design and Factom's:

• Since Factom uses the Bitcoin block chain, it doesn't defeat selfish mining employing my math derivation.
• Since Factom uses the Bitcoin block chain, it doesn't fix mining so that proof-of-work is unprofitable for ASICs and thus only the users mine.
• Since Factom uses the Bitcoin block chain, it doesn't eliminate the 51% attack.
• Factom conflates the requirement to use their tokens (factoids) in order to use their consensus network, thus network is not orthogonal to user's preferred asset class.
• Factom transactions don't become irreversible for 10 minutes, whereas my design is on the order of a second or seconds to become irreversible.
• Factom's consensus network is a fixed number of federated servers, and not an open, unbounded entropy permission-less network. I will not explain why at this time; this limitation in Factom is derives from the fact that Factom doesn't mine its own block chain.
• Whereas afaik Ethereum's unresolved technical problem has been it forces all the nodes to verify each script (or did they ever stop thrashing their research and settle on a delegation algorithm?), contract, or transaction, Factom consensus does not verify at all (relegates to clients to interpret but afaics clients can't inhibit further downstream graph entanglement), thus a tangled mayhem! I believe my design resolves this major, major issue.
• I do not see any mention of network partitioning tolerance for Factom.

There may be other differences and I will need to spend more time analyzing to be sure I have enumerated every difference.

P.S. still planning to evaluate eMunie.

[TPTB_need_war]

Very roughly (the proportions are not balanced in this rapidly hacked up mockup) what I am thinking about for a Sync logo, if we choose the Sync name for the consensus network.