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

[TPTB_need_war]

...I think I prefer Sync or BitSync, but one other idea is Syncyo...

My very first reaction on saying it was that it took a couple of goes; getting a little tongue-tied in the middle: Syn...c...yo.

Or Syncro or Synchro

Syncyo is defensible because can't be placed into a similar portmanteau without violating the community's property (thus likely being ignored). But OTOH, if we don't use BitSync/Sync, then some other project is likely to use it.

I am not too much concerned about others copying our project name with variants. If Sync/BitSync has larger market adoption, it won't really matter what the other copycoins do.

Yoobits may or may not be worrisome. I'd prefer to have currency names which have no similar portmanteaus.

I had also presented the ideas iown (from ion and i-on) and mebit long ago.

Let's not forget ibits, which is also available.

nit is short for grump or nitpicker.

So now you can see why I was proposing to use for currency names Bits, Cool, and maybe Ching or Chan.

Once again I return my original instincts which is:

Network	Sync
Main currency	Bits
Social currency	Cool
Micro-tx currency	Ching or Chan

If anyone creates a portmanteau from those, then they are really just contributing to our brand.

The micro-tx currency is optional. We could go with just Bits and Cool to simplify.

If everyone prefers Chan over Cool then we could.

If there is another name we prefer for the social/micro-tx currency, such as Vibes then we could.

K.I.S.S.

[TPTB_need_war]

...Bits is non descriptive. It could be bits of anything. We would be forcing people to use a term which is not natural because it doesn't identify what it is...

This might account for my earlier instinctive reservation over the term by itself, which non-techies and those unfamiliar with Bitcoin wouldn't easily identify with.

But Bits is not for them. The social/micro-tx currency is for them. Bits is a lower velocity of money variant for stability, i.e. for use in the programmable contracts on the block chain. Bits is the business use currency. That is why I thought associating it with the established leader Bitcoin would give it more acceptability. I think the paramount priority for the serious currency unit is familiarity, stability, reliability, and acceptance. This counters my statements above where I said Bits is non-descriptive. Yes and that is perfect for business where you don't want to pigeon-hole or make money too silly.

I really like ¥ꙭɃits for the fun money/token, I think it's something the azns can relate to with the ¥.

And it sounds like "You" which fits in with the social media theme.

I agree. And I like the look of ¥ooBits; some graphical potential there.

¥ will piss off the Chinese. Why did we favor Japan over China.

We just need to pick a brandable fun name for a social and micro-tx currency. I prefer the ꙭ currency symbol because it looks cute and friendly like two eyeballs (remember this is displayed in fun, non-serious social and micro-tx scenarios, not in business scenarios). Very unique and won't get anyone pissed off at us.

I can see that readers are ostensibly not factoring into their thought process that marketing is often about identifying distinct demographics. It seems we are sometimes conflating all the target markets together into one. Bitcoin already did that. We won't like find one name that reaches across all demographics better than Bitcoin. Instead what we can do is more precisely target distinct demographics by the use of separation-of-concerns (two currencies).

I believe there will be a stratification of preferences w.r.t. to crypto-money, because there are different priorities between business (stable store-of-value) use cases and social / mass market use cases.

Bits is too nondescript for the mass market which prefers "Candy Crunch" and "Angry Birds". Yet Cool, Chan, Vibes, Yoonits are not going to appeal as money to business users.

I think I am back to preferring Cool bits/cash/coin, because there are no copycat portmanteaus which can capture the same theme of "Cool".

Coolbits is a natural social media unit of Bits.

Yoobits is more personal, but there are too many variants, e.g. ibits, mebits, etc.. Also many people will wonder why just didn't spell "Youbits". And You bits is bit more confusing than Yourbits or mybits but then whose bits are these  . They are yours when I am going to send them to you and they are mine until I do.

Or we could try to dump Bits theme entirely but for what?

There are already other portmanteaus on Bit such a Bitz, Bitstar, Nubits, Bitpay. But doesn't that all promote Bits.

[TPTB_need_war]

I've got a better idea for the social money that can be branded with no copycats. And will really stand out. And is easy to pronounce, write, and remember.

Asians love good luck charms and gambling. Everybody wants some more individual power.

mo·jo
: a power that may seem magical and that allows someone to be very effective, successful, etc.
"works his mojo on the tennis court"
: a ​quality that ​attracts ​people to you and makes you ​successful and ​full of ​energy

Mojo.money

Currency symbol = ♏, ₥, ￦, ₩, ☘, ♧, 🃏, 🃛, 😎, 😏, %, ⚮, ꙭ, Ꝏ, ✮, ✨, ⁰j⁰, or ⛀|⛀

m⛀j⛀
m❍j❍
m⬭j⬭
mΘjΘ
mʘjʘ
mꖴjꖴ
m⌾j⌾
m⍟j⍟
m◉j◉
m○j○
m◌j◌
m◯j◯
m⚪j⚪
m⚬j⚬
m⁰j⁰
m⟳j⟲
m⟲j⟳

Note the plural might be moji or mojoes instead mojos. Interesting it originates from creole, which is my birth culture (New Orleans).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mojo

Etymology
Probably of Creole origin, cognate with Gullah moco ‎(“witchcraft”), Fula moco'o ‎(“medicine man”)

mojo ‎(plural mojos or mojoes)

A magic charm or spell.
Supernatural skill or luck.
(slang) Personal magnetism; charm.
(slang) Sex appeal; sex drive.
(slang) Illegal drugs.



mo·jo
ˈmōjō/
noun
: a magic charm, talisman, or spell.
"someone must have their mojo working over at the record company"
: magic power.
: a power that may seem magical and that allows someone to be very effective, successful, etc.
"works his mojo on the tennis court"


Different proposals for Bitcoin's currency code:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_symbol#Existing_Unicode_symbol

Today a Unicode characters was approved for Bitcoin's currency code:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-finally-gets-an-approved-unicode-character-point-1446580490


Edit: for the more serious currency unit, I think the name c⛀j⛀nes would be keeping with the same theme and could fit very well with the all male jockeying for position in this forum, lol.  

[illodin]

I haven't seen a better suggestion than Sync for a block chain 2.0 network. We can use either Sync or BitSync.

If the BS abbreviation might have negative connotation, perhaps consider SyncBits?

Network is Sync, which has Bits in there i.e SyncBits. And then later if there are apps like chat or anonymous web or markets or whatever, they could be SyncChat, SyncWeb, SyncMarkets etc. Or pegged assets like SyncDollars.

[TPTB_need_war]

Cohere	= project name
Quanta	= business oriented currency
Mojo	= social networking focused currency

Definitions:

cohere	= united & consistent
quantum	= a share of the whole (a.k.a. quotum) & fundamental unit of quantization (i.e. the generalized category to which 'bit' belongs)
mojo	= power so effective it seems[1] magic or supernatural

[1] "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."— Arthur C Clarke

None of these three proposed names:

• are used in any serious way that has any trademark infringement issues
• could be employed in copycat portmanteaus
• is defocused from its target demographic

Quanta currency symbols could be: ¤, ☰, ☷, Ξ, 𝚵, ⣕, ⌇, 𝀶, 𝀨, ♒, ⏦, ⍊, ⍛, ⍠, ⍨, ⍫, ⍯, ⎅, ⏆, ▤, ◍, 𝄝, Ů, Ʊ, Ɋ, ℺, Ϙ, Ⴓ, Ꝗ, Ⓠ, Џ, Ⴤ, Ⰻ, Ⱄ, ♨, ⚛, ℹ️ ,

A shorter alternative for Quanta is Quid.

Ripple, Stellar, Dash, BitShares

Boolberry, Decrits, eMunie, Unobtanium, Iota, Ethereum, Counterparty, Nxt, Quark, Quantum, Cinni, Monocle, Aiden, Aeon, Nibble, Etoken, Coino, Particle, Heisenberg, Ekrona, Darsek, ...

Appears that Quantum is dead, doesn't even have a market cap on coinmarketcap.com

quan·ta  (kwŏn′tə)
n.
Plural of quantum
quan•tum (ˈkwɒn təm)
n.
1. quantity or amount: the least quantum of evidence.
2. share; portion.
3. a large quantity.
4.
a. the smallest excitation of a quantized wave or field, as a photon or phonon.
b. the fundamental unit of a quantized physical property, as angular momentum, and the smallest amount by which its magnitude can change.

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.

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.

...

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.

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

[n.   1.   Part or proportion; quota.]

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.

I started with 'love' because I was thinking what people really are sending on the internet is information about relative appreciation. Then I got to 'vibe' but it is more of a feeling. What I really wanted to capture is that money is a form of stored energy and also to capture the giving of love, vibes, and likes in social networking. So many crypto names have tried to capture crypto money as a concept of small bits of information (e.g. quark, bitcoin, quantum), but that is just how it is represented and doesn't capture what it really is.

So far, the of the vast majority of people in the world who actually know of Bitcoin, they do not associate it with bits. They do understand that a bitcoin is a coin with a bit term prefixed, but most people in this world do not know that a bit is a binary digital quantification of information (two states, 0 or 1). So most people refer to Bitcoin as bitcoins and not as bits, because bits doesn't really mean anything to them other than small pieces of a coin. I think this is yet another reason that Bitcoin is an enigma to the masses (wtf is that 'bit' all about  ) and they they thus tend to not trust Bitcoin, because they don't even understand what the name means (it means nothing except it is a bitcoin what ever that is).

digitize
metarealize
quantification
...
virtualize

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.

...

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...

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.

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/

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.

[f2000]

Lots of reading to catch up on this morning, just thought I would post this now while I have a few mins in work:

¥ will piss off the Chinese. Why did we favor Japan over China.

Sorry, I’m a bit confused, I thought the ¥ symbol was for both the Chinese Yuan and the Japanese Yen? So not understanding why it would piss off the Chinese market and not the Japanese?

Yoobits is more personal, but there are too many variants, e.g. ibits, mebits, etc.. Also many people will wonder why just didn't spell "Youbits". And You bits is bit more confusing than Yourbits or mybits but then whose bits are these  . They are yours when I am going to send them to you and they are mine until I do.

Yeah, that is the downfall of a made up word…it does it run the risk of being bad/confusing English…or does it make it stand out (only time will tell I suppose)

Or we could try to dump Bits theme entirely but for what?

That’s a shame you feel that way, I think Bits is fantastic (I’ve not heard an alternative I prefer yet). I totally agree with what you said yesterday about everybody still calls Bitcoin by its full name and your users would have no other choice but to call it bits.

[TPTB_need_war]

Another zanny idea for the social oriented currency unit.

Dodat
Doodat

Any one like or dislike it?

I found it very catchy, "watch ya will do (with) that do dat". It seems to have more implicit meaning "do that" than for those who don't know what mojo means. I would hope social online money is for doing things, e.g. game tokens are to buy some more powers, weapons, lives, etc..

It reminds of the Cops theme song, "Bad boys, bad boys, watcha gonna do when they come for you".

It is a variant of doodad combined with my hometown culture phrase "whodat".

doodad
n.
: Something, especially a small device or part, whose name is unknown or forgotten.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do+dat
do dat
means to do it!
yea do dat!
by dplaya December 23, 2009

Mojo.money

Currency symbol = ♏, ₥, ￦, ₩, ☘, ♧, 🃏, 🃛, 😎, 😏, %, ⚮, ꙭ, Ꝏ, ✮, ✨, ⁰j⁰, or ⛀|⛀

m⛀j⛀
m○j○
m⁰j⁰

Mojo	= social networking focused currency

Definitions:

mojo	= power so effective it seems[1] magic or supernatural

[1] "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."— Arthur C Clarke

None of these three proposed names:

• are used in any serious way that has any trademark infringement issues
• could be employed in copycat portmanteaus
• is defocused from its target demographic

[TPTB_need_war]

¥ will piss off the Chinese. Why did we favor Japan over China.

Sorry, I’m a bit confused, I thought the ¥ symbol was for both the Chinese Yuan and the Japanese Yen? So not understanding why it would piss off the Chinese market and not the Japanese?

Correct, I got it confused with the Korean Won ￦, ₩. The currency symbol list I was viewing has "WON" and not the "Korean won". I thought WON was a misspelling of Remnibi.

Any way, I think we do not want to copy the Yuan and Yen currency symbol. Good way to get our coin potentially banned in China and Japan.

Yoobits is more personal, but there are too many variants, e.g. ibits, mebits, etc.. Also many people will wonder why just didn't spell "Youbits". And You bits is bit more confusing than Yourbits or mybits but then whose bits are these  . They are yours when I am going to send them to you and they are mine until I do.

Yeah, that is the downfall of a made up word…it does it run the risk of being bad/confusing English…or does it make it stand out (only time will tell I suppose)

Not all made up words can have many copycat variants. In this case, implied meaning of myself+bits has too many variants.

Bits doesn't mean anything at all to these filipinas I have spoken to.

My gf suggested "mobits" (more bits). Far too many variants of bits. It is a sea of names "[Insert shit]coin".

A brandable name is one that makes sense and doesn't have sensible variants. Bits doesn't make sense (just copying of Bitcoin's small market) and you+bits makes even less sense. my+bits makes more sense than you+bits. Youbits sounds good, but otherwise isn't a good name.

Dodats sounds good also. At least it means something to just about anyone who knows a few english words. Mojo sounds good, but it will only mean something to someone who knows the definition of the word (which doesn't include Asians).

Are we going to copy Bits or do something unique? We need to decide.

Or we could try to dump Bits theme entirely but for what?

That’s a shame you feel that way, I think Bits is fantastic (I’ve not heard an alternative I prefer yet). I totally agree with what you said yesterday about everybody still calls Bitcoin by its full name and your users would have no other choice but to call it bits.

I have not decided yet. I am just exploring brandable names that would allow us to escape from under Bitcoin's shadow.

However if we go with Bits for the serious currency name instead of Quanta or Quid, then I don't like Yoobits for the social currency name.

If we must do a portmanteau with bits, I'd prefer something that doesn't have variants such as tidbits.

But I also have new ideas:

dibs
kibitz
hobnob

[f2000]

Ah, so you think the ¥ symbol could cause problems? Pity, I thought you were onto something. I know you are moving away from this, but I thought I would post it up anyway. Just a rough draft (nothing is aligned), was trying see what it would look like.




A little off topic, but is BitTorrent popular where you in the world (ie your gf or her friends use it)?  Plenty of kids here in the uk (Both male  &  female) are very familiar with it and I get asked questions quite a lot by students, so I’m guessing they are accustomed to the word “Bit” plus it has the double meaning for being a bit of something (like you said in an earlier post).

I will see if I can think of anything else worth posting tonight.

[TPTB_need_war]

Ah, so you think the ¥ symbol could cause problems? Pity, I thought you were onto something. I know you are moving away from this, but I thought I would post it up anyway. Just a rough draft (nothing is aligned), was trying see what it would look like.

Designed the way you have illustrated, I no longer think it is a potentially illegal/bannable use of ¥. I did not visualize what you guys were thinking. But I am not sure it is awesome or even just exceptional (depends what we are comparing it to).

Yoobits sounds great (but so do others below), beginning with Y and oo is unique/aesthetic, and the currency symbol as you have illustrated it is good (although I am not sure if two letters is desirable or even that unique/catchy ... Aeon might use a two-letter currency symbol), but there are two counter-balancing issues to consider:

• Do we really want the Bits theme, and if so do we want Bits theme for both the business and social oriented currency units?
• Do we really want confusion withYoubits, Yourbits,  uBits, Mybits, Mebits, iBits, eBits, Selfbits, Iownbits, Ezbits, Lotabits, Cybits, Cyberbits, Netbits, Meminebitys, Tidbits, Nubits, Bitsme, Bitsy, Bitpay, Bitr, Bitz, etc?

I think if are going to do any portmanteau with Bits, then Netbits makes the most sense and it was on my original poll and only got 1 vote.

A little off topic, but is BitTorrent popular where you in the world (ie your gf or her friends use it)?  Plenty of kids here in the uk (Both male  &  female) are very familiar with it and I get asked questions quite a lot by students, so I’m guessing they are accustomed to the word “Bit” plus it has the double meaning for being a bit of something (like you said in an earlier post).

I will see if I can think of anything else worth posting tonight.

Bittorrent is not used by the masses, only by male geeks.

(Btw, I have never used it because it requires me to download a client and do setup, even though I did try to suggest to them many years ago at the Bitorrent.org forum archive on how to improve the tit-for-tat economic model of Bittorrent. I would never release crypto that didn't run in the browser.)

Bits works for male geeks. For everyone else, it has no meaning at all, other than "Oh yeah that Bitcoin thing" for those in developed countries that have been bombarded with the media.

We can use Bits for the business currency, since the business world is dominated by males. But bits doesn't make much sense to me (it isn't natural nor implicit) in the social world. If we a portmanteau with Bits for the social oriented currency, then the combining word should make the portmanteau unique (no variants) and give it meaning that regular people will grasp, e.g.:

netbits

But netbits doesn't mean money either. To a regular person, it implies a technical term for the internet. See bits has no apt meaning.

The advantage is then it connects with the overall Bits theme, but do we even want to go with a Bits theme where there is so much dilution and copying of the Bits theme? We have the risk that by promoting Bits, we end up promoting Bitcoin (I know I argued the opposite, but generally speaking markets tend to gel around a market leader when there is confusion, due to expediency and efficiency).

However since we have free reign especially with the social oriented currency unit, we can choose any name we like that we think would be the most catchy, meaningful, and brandable for the masses.

Ching	(or Chan)
Clickz	(or Clicks, Clix, Klicks, etc)
Coolbits	(or Coolcash)
Dibs	(e.g. "who takes first dibs on that?")
Dodats	(or Doodats)
Mojos	(or Moji)
Yoobits	(or Youbits, Yourbits,  uBits, Mybits, Mebits, iBits, eBits, Selfbits, Iownbits, NuBits, Bitz, Bitstar, Bitspay, Bitsy, Bitr)

Note Dabs did not do well as a cypto-project name, but I presume it was marketed to the speculators only. And Dabs doesn't mean anything.

Btw, I realized that I had the same Younits idea in 2014 and dismissed it because the masses don't know what a unit is. We are getting to the point where we are recycling old throught processes. We need to try to move forward and make a decision. I have introduced some new ideas and I am vigorously scouring my mental database to see if I can think of any creative alternatives.

[coins101]

Symmetry.

Like, super.

[THX 1138]

I've still to properly assimilate the various ideas and alterations that have been submitted today - having trouble keeping up with all the incoming Sorry if the following seems a little hurried - that's coz it is! Not much time this evening. So the following are intuitive, reflexive impressions rather than well considered. Maybe there's a function to that.

I showed many of the names to my wife without any prompting, just giving the outline requirements. She's aware of bitcoin and the block chain and kind of knows what it's about, but not a geek.

We both like Mojo for the social network currency, and these were our favourite symbols: mʘjʘ  m⌾j⌾   m◉j◉ (John Lennon),  and m⟳j⟲ (the latter we both thought well represented "money" leaving and returning).

She was OK with Bits - actually, I'm slowly coming around to that one.

Regarding Chan(s), she thought that sounded risky; like chance. And Cohere for the project name seemed too like a govt. project, and Quanta for the business currency a little geeky. She preferred the word Mesh to Sync - though I accept you might require a hefty amount of convincing over that one! Neither of us like Clickz; my wife said it sounded like someone trying to be cool; an "awesome dude-ness" about it; trying too hard. Cha-Ching makes us cringe - maybe a too pompous Pom reaction!

A few she came up with herself:

Munmuns (a fun phrase we use for money)
Doodads. (Truly, she came up with that before we read it here with your Dodat, Doodat Doodads, suggestions - a bit of synchronicity there!). Prefer Doodads out of the three. Doodads for us are thingamajigs; an affectionate phrase for something you don't know the name of.
JuJu
Chunks
Chips

Both undecided on Vibes, but we thought of Chime as another possible. I quite like Quantum (hope you find solace in that - ouch!).

Ah, so you think the ¥ symbol could cause problems? Pity, I thought you were onto something. I know you are moving away from this, but I thought I would post it up anyway. Just a rough draft (nothing is aligned), was trying see what it would look like.

Designed the way you have illustrated, I no longer think it is a potentially illegal/bannable use of ¥. I did not visualize what you guys were thinking. But I am not sure it is awesome or even just exceptional (depends what we are comparing it to).

Yes, yes and... Yes! This is what I was hoping originally when I first saw it.

uɃits is a grower.

Btw, Quids is close to the slang UK term for Pounds: Quid; though I expect you already know that.

Ultimately, it's a tough task in attempting to second guess the myriad cultural responses to names for a potentially global audience. What might seem right in calculation can all too easily just not connect for some mystifying reason; and again, an idea almost dismissed could take off. It's not a science. I hope more people from a wider age and cultural background contribute to this brainstorming.

So here we go:

Project name = Mesh (by itself or as a portmanteau) or ɃitSync.

Store-of-value and large asset transactions = ¥Ƀ ¥ouɃits

Social networking currency = Mojo ♏

Rapid-fire, unconscious micro-transactions = Doodads or MunMuns

[TPTB_need_war]

We both like Mojo for the social network currency

It has an apt conceptual symmetry to money, but a tradeoff is that many people won't get it nor appreciate the association once it is explained to them. It is sort of an enigma, especially for a global audience.

She was OK with Bits - actually, I'm slowly coming around to that one.

Safe choice but not awespiring. Risks throwing it all away to Bitcoin and being relegated to a sea of altbitcoins.

Regarding Chan(s), she thought that sounded risky; like chance. And Cohere for the project name seemed too like a govt. project, and Quanta for the business currency a little geeky.

Agreed all. Chan is too risky and we can make a better choice.

Quant has a better sound, but Quants are analysts.

She preferred the word Mesh to Sync - though I accept you might require a hefty amount of convincing over that one!

With Sync (the network) I am targeting programmers and developers who know what Synchronous means. I am not targeting the general public with the network name, although if we can think of a name that also appeals to general public or at least businessmen (decision makers), then that is preferred.

Mesh is more strongly associated with the meaning that every participant is interconnected (which is not the main point of a block chain), and doesn't imply anything about the timing, speed, and consistency. It does weakly imply unity. In my opinion in terms of a technical audience, it is the weaker name for a block chain. It is more related to communication network topology.

Munmuns (a fun phrase we use for money)
JuJu
Chunks
Chips

-100 on those

Store-of-value and large asset transactions = ¥Ƀ ¥ouɃits

This is a very weak name for the serious business oriented currency unit. Can you seriously imagine this being taken seriously over the world  

Social networking currency = Mojo ♏

Rapid-fire, unconscious micro-transactions = Doodads or MunMuns

Let's unify the social currency into one choice and one unit.

I think Doodats is preferable to Doodads, because it rolls off the tongue more crisply, it will have some meaning a global audience which has never heard of doodads. And for those who know doodads, they will get it also.

K.I.S.S.

[TPTB_need_war]

Symmetry.

Like, super.

It's better than Cohere.

Brainstorming on consensus networks:

Assumble
Crowdsync
Hivernate
Massync
Swa-army
Swarmatrix

Brainstorming on currencies:

Cashash
ChingKong
Crushash
Dibs
Diggits
Digicodes
Digidits
Digiload
Digimonie
Ditdats
Doodats  (Doodads)
Gonkey
Mojo
Netcodes
Netmonie
Pᗣᗧmon ᗧ͇̿·¢·¢··
Simbling (Simubling)
Smurfs
Stars
Sum
Swag
Tokgits
toKong

[TPTB_need_war]

Nummus
Indicium

Jade

My precious.

As in Coin.

Num(b)nuts, lol.

Indicium sounds like a medicine for Indicitis. I deleted your post because I quoted it, so as to cut down on thread length.

[TPTB_need_war]

Hoping to speak on the phone with these guys today:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114192/filipino-bitcoin-startup-raises-further-us100000-for-unbanked-remittance-service
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/rebit-ph-co-founder-bitcoin-doesn-t-make-remittances-cheaper-yet-1444329020

[TPTB_need_war]

Finally I got my head screwed on straight.

K.I.S.S.

After thinking this over deeply, I'm reasonably certain the following executive decision is correct.

Netcode	= project name, block chain 2.0
netcodes (or codes)	= transaction currency with higher supply and rates of debasement
netgold	= store-of-value currency with lower supply and rates of debasement

Currency	ISO symbol	Currency symbol
netcodes (or codes)	XNC	Ꝅ, Đ, ᗟ, ᗠ, ᗫ, ᑱ, ᒇ, ᖙ, Ↄ, Ꜿ, ᑝ, ᕭ, ᑢ, ᕮ, ᑪ, Ȼ, ⵞ, ⵛ, Ꮳ, ල, ᄄ, ᄯ, ㉢, Ꮻ, ꖀ, ꗫ, ꗹ, ☷ , ⣕, 𝍓, ྿, ꕥ, ⌨, ⑆, ⑈, ꙮ, or 힣
netgold	XNG	Ǥ, Ꮹ, ဌ, ꓨ, ⓖ, ⛀, ⛁, or ℥ (oz.)

Rationale:

• Block chain 2.0 is generally about net code— code operating in a consensus, Byzantine fault tolerant network.
• Code is the only generally meaningful unit of information on the net, more so than even bits.
• Gold is the most generally known global store-of-value.

It is impossible to directly connote what people think of as money without combining one of the terms they already associate with money, e.g. coin, cash, money, dollars, pesos, gold, etc.. And gold does not associate with transaction currency, thus isn't what the masses think is money.

Thus 'bits' is not money to anyone, except due to its association with Bitcoin, because Bitcoin associated bits with money. Before Bitcoin, bits meant 'pieces' to the masses and "binary unit of information" only to (predominantly male) geeks. Thus the market of people that implicitly think of bits as money is as small as (some fraction of) Bitcoin's mindshare. That isn't absolutely miniscule (yet presumably still small still relative to the 6 billion), but it probably means the association of bits with money grows only along with Bitcoin's mindshare.

The only term in cyberspace that the masses associate with some token of information is 'code'. Code can mean for example an access code, upgrade code, secret code, software code, etc.. Code is thus a very general term for fungible information in cyberspace. Thus code is the manifestation of what money is to humanity in cyberspace. More direct to the point, the term 'code' by itself is the fungible asset of cyberspace to most people, yet 'bit' has no such powerful association in the minds of most people. For example, many people have some concept of what code is and its relationship to cyberspace, but they don't relate a token to information and cyperspace.

As Andreas Antonopoulos recently explained, money is a medium of communication.

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.

Thus Bitcoin was incorrectly named in the sense of being implicitly comprehensible to the mainstream. It could have been named Codecoin, except the later doesn't roll off the tongue as well as the former. And the latter has a less specific meaning "encoded or programmed coins" versus "binary data coins". The latter meaning is probably more attuned to the initial male geek target market for Bitcoin. Simply put, code works better without the 'coin' suffix, yet Bitcoin needed to be more explicit with the associate to traditional money in a nascent market where no such concept had appeared before. Thus Bitcoin was more appropriate than Code or Netcode.

Yet we desire to generalize the market for Bitcoin into general decentralized network coding and applications of encoded consensus metrics. For this, code is the only term I have been able to think of which most people on the internet will recognize as a pertinent form of unit of information. Codes have utility for people. For example, I had to enter the "Promo code" of PRIVACYPLEASE at name.com to register some of the domains.

For those who want Bitcoin to be a store-of-value more than a transaction currency, then netgold has been what they were conceptually looking for. Not physical gold, but netgold. I think those people looking for crypto store-of-value, can relate to the term netgold. It is ironic that I return to the name (netgold) I had decided to use before starting this thread. As the global economic sovereign debt meltdown proceeds into capital controls and chaos through 2020, I think the concept of a netgold will be in demand.

[tobeaj2mer01]

Comparing to the names, I care about what is this coin capable of even more!

[f2000]

I'm struggling to come up with anything, think I'm tapped out. I liked your Quantum suggestion but again relies on bits (qbits/qubits) for the currency. My first reaction to netcode was it sounds like somewhere I would learn about coding, I dont think it says anything about currency or value to the end user. Apart from that, the only other one I quite liked was Moji (mojo not so much).

Anyway, I will keep checking back and I will post any worthwhile suggestions...but I don't want to distract you with rubbish ideas. Good luck!

[f2000]

Symmetry.

Like, super.

Still here! I quite liked this also, you could shorten the currency down to sym.