Bitcoin Fork Naming Convention

[jrobi4life]

To preempt seemingly inevitable bitcoin forks, I suggest Bitcoin adopt a naming convention so that we don't have Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Platinum and Bitcoin Pearl just out there without a tether.  I suggest that we adopt the following simple naming convention for forks: BITCOIN-DD-MM-YY. In this way there can be a common name as well as a standardized name as all these iterations continue to develop and work independently and cooperatively.

Thoughts? (Especially from those who decide)

[Warren Buffert]

My thoughts are, this will never happen.
Bitcoin will always remain bitcoin and people would always find some similarity in other names.

[joshmontford]

Yeah, simple this might be, I don't think it's would work like this. In my opinion this would get confusing fast

[bitcoinvestor]

Yeah, simple this might be, I don't think it's would work like this. In my opinion this would get confusing fast

Bitcoin naming isn't consensus but it is algo and scale consensus, the real bitcoin is BTC now, the fork of BCH, BCC, BTU or BTG. those are different from bitcoin. SO there is no need to make concensus naming bitcoin. Consensus naming bitcoin means the bitcoin community legitimate the fork. In fact bitcoin community from miners, developers, and users oppose to the fork.

[Athreos]

It's a very interesting and certainly ethical idea, but it's not marketable. I think the major problem is that it does not appeal to investors that are new to the crypto space. People that have been around the space for a while seem to be a bit more skeptical of these hard forks, which makes them less profitable. A catchy name can attract new, less experienced investors though creating a new opportunity for profit.

[jrobi4life]

Yeah, simple this might be, I don't think it's would work like this. In my opinion this would get confusing fast

Why would it be more confusing than trying to remember individual names? If we get to the point where we're in double digit forks, I think this will almost be a necessity.  Especially when you consider all these blockchains are re-converging in many ways through cross chain software

[Capeshifter]

It's a very interesting and certainly ethical idea, but it's not marketable. I think the major problem is that it does not appeal to investors that are new to the crypto space. People that have been around the space for a while seem to be a bit more skeptical of these hard forks, which makes them less profitable. A catchy name can attract new, less experienced investors though creating a new opportunity for profit.

a catchy name might help, but people are already used to the current one, and if there is one thing people hate - it's change. In the future when BTC receives even more attention and wider adoption, it might make sense to do that, but it's still a relatively new concept to many people and changing with names etc. just complicates things even more

[jrobi4life]

It's a very interesting and certainly ethical idea, but it's not marketable. I think the major problem is that it does not appeal to investors that are new to the crypto space. People that have been around the space for a while seem to be a bit more skeptical of these hard forks, which makes them less profitable. A catchy name can attract new, less experienced investors though creating a new opportunity for profit.

That's a good point about having a catchy new name.  That's why I suggest having both.  If a hard fork happens there is obviously a group of people who don't have consensus with the rest of the people and want to separate themselves. So expecting them to abide by a naming convention and only call themselves BITCOIN-DD-MM-YY is not realistic.  In fact they may even rename themselves and make massive changes to their crypto and fork multiple times themselves. However this can be used among developers as a standardized snapshot of the protocol at the time it parted ways with bitcoin. Not to mention when other forks happen within those forks we will need a way to keep them straight as well.  In this way we can eliminate the confusion of which fork of bitcoin cash or bitcoin gold someone is on.  On the trajectory we're going we could easily have dozens of forks and sub-forks

[jrobi4life]

My thoughts are, this will never happen.
Bitcoin will always remain bitcoin and people would always find some similarity in other names.

Not even if it's some years in the future and bitcoin is at $1,000,000, blockchain tech has been more standardized and there are dozens of forks? What about even years beyond that? For all these cryptos to be valuable they must be able to exchange value whether for goods and services for other crypto assets or fiat. So that means inter-operability which means standards and naming conventions. Time is a valuable piece of data to introduce. So that even someone that doesn't know the name of a particular fork can look at code and know exactly where it fits in Bitcoin's history.  It could also be standardized far beyond that

[okae]

To preempt seemingly inevitable bitcoin forks, I suggest Bitcoin adopt a naming convention so that we don't have Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Platinum and Bitcoin Pearl just out there without a tether.  I suggest that we adopt the following simple naming convention for forks: BITCOIN-DD-MM-YY. In this way there can be a common name as well as a standardized name as all these iterations continue to develop and work independently and cooperatively.

Thoughts? (Especially from those who decide)

I don't understand the sense about your statement, we already have a name convention, Bitcoin and the rest... so why we will need to "tangle this up" even more? even if there will be 10k of forks, things will be always clear, as i said, bitcoin and the rest....so i don't see the needed on doing it.

[Ging]

good topic bro the next btc fork is without a doubt the next big thing. and i see you have a problem with the naming conventions but i would like you to know that forks regaedless of thier naming are not bad at all they happen in order to  rules upgrade that introduces a new rule to the network that isn’t compatible with the older software.( new rule to allow block size to bebigger would require a hard fork).

[jrobi4life]

Yeah, simple this might be, I don't think it's would work like this. In my opinion this would get confusing fast

Bitcoin naming isn't consensus but it is algo and scale consensus, the real bitcoin is BTC now, the fork of BCH, BCC, BTU or BTG. those are different from bitcoin. SO there is no need to make concensus naming bitcoin. Consensus naming bitcoin means the bitcoin community legitimate the fork. In fact bitcoin community from miners, developers, and users oppose to the fork.

This could be used as a way to maintain inter-operability between bitcoin and any direct fork.  The new fork can have it's own official seperate name and price but still be able to exchange with bitcoin because we know exactly how to interact with it because we know exactly where it fits in Bitcoins blockchain history. With all the cross chain stuff going on I can see a use for this for plug and play cross exchange and I think it would benefit all.  The naming convention could act as a snapshot even down to a fraction of a second or block number for precision.

[BlomBaster]

If I decide to create a Bitcoin Fork, then I will take your opinion into account. No one prevents me from creating a coin and call it bitcoin or zcash, but exchange newer add my coin.

[BitcoinHodler]

there is no way to force them into any naming convention the same way there is no way to stop them from forking and using the name of bitcoin. if you found a way to force this naming convention i suggest something like "some new name" instead of "bitcoin ....".

the reason why these people are doing it is because they want to have a nice name. they want people thinking it is a proper coin worthy of investment. so they call it bitcoin plus some name that attracts attention. these include but not limited to : cash, gold, core, unlimited,...

If I decide to create a Bitcoin Fork, then I will take your opinion into account. No one prevents me from creating a coin and call it bitcoin or zcash, but exchange newer add my coin.

they will if you pay them

[13abyknight]

As we move into the future where more and more forks are bound to occur, it won't be long before the crypto world gets tired of forking the main chain again and again with just a new Bitcoin 'xyz' name. I believe Bitcoin Cash will be the only survivor at the end of the day, Gold, Diamond and all the bullshit to follow will never have a future in the market.

[jrobi4life]

As we move into the future where more and more forks are bound to occur, it won't be long before the crypto world gets tired of forking the main chain again and again with just a new Bitcoin 'xyz' name. I believe Bitcoin Cash will be the only survivor at the end of the day, Gold, Diamond and all the bullshit to follow will never have a future in the market.

I think what will happen is that we'll have all these different coins forking in every direction with different groups of people who think their coin or platform is the best and then we'll have these. At some point I think the focus will be on at least some base standardizing so all these different cryptos can easily communicate and exchange value with eachother.  Companies like Prism and Ark will flourish and I'll bet at some point some type of interface that allows tokens to exchange values will be standardized in the community and built right into the blockchains, but who knows how many years in the future that may be.

[TrumpD]

I like the idea, but its just not practicable. I don't dig the forks though, and I still not easily convinced, I still have doubts and reservations, and I figure a large chunk of the community are skeptics too. That is a bigger problem , more so than "naming rights" 

[jrobi4life]

good topic bro the next btc fork is without a doubt the next big thing. and i see you have a problem with the naming conventions but i would like you to know that forks regaedless of thier naming are not bad at all they happen in order to  rules upgrade that introduces a new rule to the network that isn’t compatible with the older software.( new rule to allow block size to bebigger would require a hard fork).

Thanks bro.  I don't really see forks as bad but I do think they can create confusion especially for beginners. If someone's brand new and you just sign up for an account on an exchange and you see one that says Bitcoin and one that says Bitcoin Platinum you may automatically go for Bitcoin Platinum just because the name indicates it's better or more exclusive. Forks are good for Bitcoin because it's the only way to improve on it.  I just think we've got to have some ways to identify them technically. Kind of like IP addresses and Domain names.  BNS - Blockchain Naming System.  I can see it happening. lol