Should we ReBrand Bitcoin?

[Kprawn]

Do you think Bitcoin needs some Rebranding?

Rebranding is the creation of a new look and feel for an established product or company. The usual goal of rebranding is to influence a customer's perception about a product or service or the company overall by revitalizing the brand and making it seem more modern and relevant to the customer's needs.

First off, the name is a bit confusing? - Most people see the name and associate it with some physical coin. The media is also not helping with this

perception, because with every article about Bitcoin, pictures are shown of physical Casascius bitcoins.

The other aspect of Bitcoin that can be rebranded is it's bad reputation that has been built up and shilled up ..over years.

Every company gets to a point where they need to re-think their original goals and future plans... Why not Bitcoin? We have come a long way

since 2009 and making small changes will help us to take this into a new future, without the baggage of the past.  

What would the pro's and cons of this be, and also the impact?

Let's discuss.  

[pereira4]

Do you think Bitcoin needs some Rebranding?

Rebranding is the creation of a new look and feel for an established product or company. The usual goal of rebranding is to influence a customer's perception about a product or service or the company overall by revitalizing the brand and making it seem more modern and relevant to the customer's needs.

First off, the name is a bit confusing? - Most people see the name and associate it with some physical coin. The media is also not helping with this

perception, because with every article about Bitcoin, pictures are shown of physical Casascius bitcoins.

The other aspect of Bitcoin that can be rebranded is it's bad reputation that has been built up and shilled up ..over years.

Every company gets to a point where they need to re-think their original goals and future plans... Why not Bitcoin? We have come a long way

since 2009 and making small changes will help us to take this into a new future, without the baggage of the past.  

What would the pro's and cons of this be, and also the impact?

Let's discuss.  

No. Bitcoin network effect is too big, the brand is strong enough to keep growing. Bitcoin sounds cool, it's short and sharp, the logo is also good.

Internet had bad reputation at the begining too, it means nothing. All cutting edge technology that poses problems to the status quo will get bad reputation no matter what you do about it.

[franky1]

we already see blockstream rebranding things..

'its no longer blocksize, but blockweight'
'its no longer blockheight that matters but chainwork'
'its no longer satoshi-qt, but blockstream-core'

things i think that will NATURALLY change
is when people measure their holdings in 'bits' (100sats)

things that should change to avoid confusion
if we call a 'wallet' a 'keychain'/'keyring' (you know the thing in your pocket that holds your [door] keys together)

i think once 'bits' become common place people can understand the difference between
Bitcoin (consensus protocol network)
bitcoin (the currency)

i know people try to use 'btc' for the currency and bitcoin for the network. but some terminology should change either naturally through time due to laymen using it. or by us actively thinking about the words we use and the imagery it conjures up when talking commonly to people. to help make describing it less of a headache

[newIndia]

Re-branding bitcoin will result in an Alt coin. Bitcoin will remain bitcoin.

By the way, who are the we in Should we ReBrand Bitcoin?

[deisik]

~snipped~

Let's discuss. 

There is nothing to discuss

To stay afloat, Bitcoin has to solve a lot of other real problems, and I don't think that it is a right idea to start such discussions (if only for the sake of discussion itself). As to me, the name Bitcoin fully reflects its nature. It is a coin, not a bill (paper money which can issued in infinite amounts), i.e. it is not printed and ordinary people would likely link it to a gold coin (which seems to be a correct analogy here). Bit refers to its digital nature, therefore the name fits perfectly

[joshy23]

Do you think Bitcoin needs some Rebranding?

Rebranding is the creation of a new look and feel for an established product or company. The usual goal of rebranding is to influence a customer's perception about a product or service or the company overall by revitalizing the brand and making it seem more modern and relevant to the customer's needs.

First off, the name is a bit confusing? - Most people see the name and associate it with some physical coin. The media is also not helping with this

perception, because with every article about Bitcoin, pictures are shown of physical Casascius bitcoins.

The other aspect of Bitcoin that can be rebranded is it's bad reputation that has been built up and shilled up ..over years.

Every company gets to a point where they need to re-think their original goals and future plans... Why not Bitcoin? We have come a long way

since 2009 and making small changes will help us to take this into a new future, without the baggage of the past.  

What would the pro's and cons of this be, and also the impact?

Let's discuss.  

Bitcoin has never reach mass adoption yet, You said rebranding is the creation of a new look and fell for an "established" product or company. Bitcoin never been established or universally accepted at the moment so re-branding is out of the question.

Bitcoin is a crypto-currency, meaning its virtual money and not some physical coin that you can put in your wallet or hold in your hands. It was designed to be like that and will never be change.

[Senor.Bla]

Since nobody is in charge, as the whole blocksize debate proves, there can not be a classical rebranding. But known bloggers, developers, exchanges and business will start to use names and such differently and then it is up to the community/users to pick up and do the same or not. Only if the users will adopt a term, then it will be used. But it is very hard to force this and also most users do not see a need to rebrand anything yet. The hardest thing to rebrand is the name. Even if we did this today i am sure people would still talk about Bitcoin in 10 years. This would be also a very cost intensive thin to do (just imagine how many businesses would have to change names, and this forum as well).

[BitcoinBarrel]

Absolutely NOT. Bitcoin is the perfect name for a Crypto currency as I have pointed out before.

Bit is a known measurement for digital data and Coin is common for money. What better name can you come up with?

[gentlemand]

No. The more history it has the better as far as I'm concerned, even if it a lot of it is a bit negative. That makes its success all the more impressive to people who might come to it in the future. By now everyone's heard the word. If it brushes their lives in an interesting way then they'll already have had a whiff of what it is.  

Nothing can be sweetness and light all the time and Bitcoin's battered reputation should inspire a little more trust than some of the snake oil bollocks offered up elsewhere. It was the first and always will be. That's a lot of baggage. That's also a lot of trust earned.

[Herbet Fry]

Then the new branded bitcoin get a bad name or reputation again ? Then what? Rebrand again ? When does it end ? The people with alternative motives. No matter what your brand. Changing it won't do anything. Bitcoin is suppose to make people think of money because coins of all kinds have been used for thousands of years so they call it a bitcoin. Hence the bit part. Bit meaning digital and coon meaning currency or money. This is not rocket science. Its pretty damn obvious.

[Lionidas]

To rebrand it now then all the media publized about it would be for nothing and it would need to make it'self known to world starting all over again from the very beginning.
You think even 20% of the population on earth knows what ethereum is?
I thought so.

[artows21]

No, we should not as what makes Bitcoin stand above the mass of the other altcoins is the branding. We would not be worth more than ShitcoinX2 if we do this.

[DannyHamilton]

Yes.

All businesses, individuals, mining pools, exchanges, etc should immediately start working with millibitcoins instead of bitcoins.

These should be rebranded immediately as "millibits".

As a nickname, everyone should consider calling them "millies"  or "millys".

This will create a perception that the currency is easy to afford (only about $1 per Millie today!).  Everyone can be informed that there is a pegged 1000:1 exchange rate between Millies and Bitcoins.  You can exchange 1000 Millies for 1 Bitcoin and vice versa without any fee.  Any business that accepts only Bitcoins can be paid with the correct number of Millies even if they haven't yet implemented Millies.  Any business that accepts only Millies can be paid with the correct number of Bitcoins even if the payer hasn't yet converted to Millies.

[HanSchultz]

Re-branding bitcoin will result in an Alt coin. Bitcoin will remain bitcoin.

By the way, who are the we in Should we ReBrand Bitcoin?

He just wanted to know how people will react to this new idea of re branding bitcoin. It is a simple thought he would like to debate.But you said the answer  because if you re brand bitcoin it will be a new alt coin and we have a couple of thousand coins for that matter. 

[realm]

No I wouldn't touch it. "Bitcoin" is already a well known term. And despite the fact that many people don't what it is , the majority of them have heard the term at least once in their life. And that's what's important.
You can't start promoting all over again from zero.
Furthermore I'm afraid that such a decision would require some sort of centralization. So better let it be, there are already many open issues in the community to add another one.

[digaran]

Is this a beta test to familiarize people's minds for possible future forks like ETC and ETH so you need to come up with a name and let it sink in so community wont go to the shock when that happened? Maybe use BC2 or LN hehe.
Rebrand what mate it's not an ice cream flavor .

[artows21]

Yes.

All businesses, individuals, mining pools, exchanges, etc should immediately start working with millibitcoins instead of bitcoins.

These should be rebranded immediately as "millibits".

As a nickname, everyone should consider calling them "millies"  or "millys".

This will create a perception that the currency is easy to afford (only about $1 per Millie today!).  Everyone can be informed that there is a pegged 1000:1 exchange rate between Millies and Bitcoins.  You can exchange 1000 Millies for 1 Bitcoin and vice versa without any fee.  Any business that accepts only Bitcoins can be paid with the correct number of Millies even if they haven't yet implemented Millies.  Any business that accepts only Millies can be paid with the correct number of Bitcoins even if the payer hasn't yet converted to Millies.

I do not think this is worth the great problems it would create. We should simply advertise more millibitcoins rather than bitcoins. This can be solved only in the way we present the things. Your idea would complicate a lot more what is already enough.

[tiggytomb]

Yes.

All businesses, individuals, mining pools, exchanges, etc should immediately start working with millibitcoins instead of bitcoins.

These should be rebranded immediately as "millibits".

As a nickname, everyone should consider calling them "millies"  or "millys".

This will create a perception that the currency is easy to afford (only about $1 per Millie today!).  Everyone can be informed that there is a pegged 1000:1 exchange rate between Millies and Bitcoins.  You can exchange 1000 Millies for 1 Bitcoin and vice versa without any fee.  Any business that accepts only Bitcoins can be paid with the correct number of Millies even if they haven't yet implemented Millies.  Any business that accepts only Millies can be paid with the correct number of Bitcoins even if the payer hasn't yet converted to Millies.

I kind of like the idea of the rebranding and use of the term milly / millies / millys, it does give it that extra feel of being less than a Bitcoin and differentiates it from being a Bitcoin. 

In response to the op I think a rebrand of Bitcoin as a whole would not be easily achievable and I don't think it is needed right now.

[franky1]

changing everything so there is no mention of "bitcoin" either as protocol / network / currency = bad.

but the currency will eventually move down to something like 'bits' naturally via common conversation/ usage over time.
millies is just a temporary intermediary 'measure'. i dont see a reason to teach people to move from btc to milly and then later to bit over the next decade.

probably better to go from btc to bits,

much like not point going from tonnes of gold in ancient egypt to stone, kilograms pounds to ounces to grams.
instead tonnes to ounces to grams

no one is saying rebrand gold to "yellowmetal" or rebranding bitcoin to "hashcash"

but knowing how natural measures and terminology of currency vary in common conversation and utility.
i do see
eventually we will be talking about the currency measure as 'bits' eventually

and for logical common discussions of explaining things. maybe changing 'wallet' to 'keyring' has an advantage in analogy terms

[Willitivity]

Since over the years it has been know as BITCOIN and referred to as such, it has become popular among people, a change on name will make people think the crytocurrency has also changed, I don't see any need for change in name whatsoever.

As for the bad reputation, that was in the past, right now, people can believe and accept bitcoins though not at every level. And also there are some online investments these days that accept bitcoins, so the bad reputation is gradually dying down.