Request for input into name of Bitcoin backed digital cash

[mouse]

Hi,

as always, my statements are based on my understanding and assumptions. Temper them with my post count. Ok here goes:

STATEMENTS
Bitcoin cannot sustain very large amounts of transactions, and to avoid 'transaction spam' high tx fees are in place (hence why you cannot send someone 100 satoshis, without paying many times that in fees).
Bitcoins transactions are not instant. The guarantee of the transaction is related to the number of confirmations.
Bitcoins are not truely anonymous, but they are pseudo-anonymous (becuase they rely on a public ledger).

PROBLEM
This may hinder business takeup. It also means micro transactions are not currently feasable.

SOLUTION (as I see it)
Introduction of a digital cash system that is backed by and pegged to Bitcoins. This digital cash system allows microtransactions, has no waiting time for confirmations, is 100% anonymous, and brings many other benefits to the table. An example of such a system may be Open Transactions: https://github.com/FellowTraveler/Open-Transactions
If something like OT is accepted, clients will be written that work with bitcoins and the OT bitcoin currency version seamlessly.
The former will be for you savings account, the latter will be your daily spending account.

OK, so far NONE of this is what I wish to debate. So if your all still with me, then suppose we do introduce and accept a digital cash system based on bitcoins, and they are preferred payment by some merchants, and required by others (those that rely on micropayments for example).

The question is, what should they be called?
quickCoins? InstantBTC? BitCash?

I dont think reusing bitcoins would be smart, as it would be very confusing at the checkout. "Payment methods acepted: Bitcoins, Bitcoins (the other one), VISA, PayPal, etc).
But a good clear marketing name would help to spell the benefits of such a method. "Bitcoins, BitCash, VISA, PayPal, etc"

[1714938470]

1714938470

[1714938470]

1714938470

[qikaifu]

I don't approve with "100% anonymous" in your digital cash system.

If someone want to be anonymous, he will just use bitcoin on a Tor.

Your system is about fast, cheap and reliable. Being reliable means you have to cooperate with GOV. Yes, maybe some of the bitcoiner don't like GOV, but lots of the users are just buying coffee and T-shirt with bitcoin, they don't mind that much to be under regulated by GOV, as we always are in our daily life. we just want a kind of currency that won't be inflationary as much as GOV want.

And if you're not cooperative with GOV, most of the business in the real world are not dare to accept your payment service, which would bring a lot of potential legal risk to them.

So keep the track record and identity information of your client, keep it highly confidential. If the GOV want it and have the permission from the court, hand it to them. Yes, You will lose some highly private guys, but you will be welcomed by much larger group of people.

[julz]

PROBLEM
This may hinder business takeup. It also means micro transactions are not currently feasable.

I don't fully understand the bitcoin transaction process - but the apparent difficulty in using bitcoins for micropayments is a huge disappointment for me.

I keep hearing how bitcoins are highly divisible - yet with such an arcane transaction system (where the fee changes based on the makeup of coins in your wallet?!) - the average user just isn't going to trust that (or know whether) they can send X uBTC or nBTC without losing a huge slice.

I think it's not only a hindrance for business uptake - but for the individual who just hears of bitcoin now and wants to try it out.

People trying it out now - might get 1mBTC from the faucet..   and probably nothing from mining pool.
It takes what.. a month with a modern but not top-of-the-line graphics card to even get a payout? Even if people have the ability to figure out the mining part - many will give up I think. (The very fact that pools don't seem to payout til some relatively huge size just reinforces the idea that small transactions aren't really catered for in bitcoin)

People need - right now - the ability to confidently send and receive micro BTC amounts.  Because I don't understand the transaction details - I worry that even sending a few uBTC back and forth with a friend - will somehow fragment my wallet and cause higher transaction fees in future!
I may be completely wrong in this - but until transactions are understandable - this is a problem.

In short - I think your proposal is premature, because it just adds to the complexity.
What we need first is stability and UNDERSTANDABILITY in the transaction behaviour of bitcoin client software.

Better documentation at bitcoin.org is probably the answer..  and it needs devs to think from the perspective of people who own merely 1mBTC.
I suspect all the devs have many whole BTC - and are oblivious to the needs of the 'poor'.  Same old story with any economy I guess

[marcus_of_augustus]

I don't approve with "100% anonymous" in your digital cash system.

If someone want to be anonymous, he will just use bitcoin on a Tor.

Your system is about fast, cheap and reliable. Being reliable means you have to cooperate with GOV. Yes, maybe some of the bitcoiner don't like GOV, but lots of the users are just buying coffee and T-shirt with bitcoin, they don't mind that much to be under regulated by GOV, as we always are in our daily life. we just want a kind of currency that won't be inflationary as much as GOV want.

And if you're not cooperative with GOV, most of the business in the real world are not dare to accept your payment service, which would bring a lot of potential legal risk to them.

So keep the track record and identity information of your client, keep it highly confidential. If the GOV want it and have the permission from the court, hand it to them. Yes, You will lose some highly private guys, but you will be welcomed by much larger group of people.

People underestimate the demand for private transactions. Private transactions serve to keep security for the users high not just the currency .... for obvious reasons. Traceable money lacks high fungibility (indistinguishability) and is therefore a deficient form of digital asset, and will be worth less than its untraceable, i.e. highly fungible, counterpart in the marketplace, all other factors being equal.

OT doesn't store records by design ... and anyway OP said none of this was up for discussion, guess you missed that part?

I suggest;

PrivateCash
PrivateCoin

BitGold

[hugolp]

I don't approve with "100% anonymous" in your digital cash system.

If someone want to be anonymous, he will just use bitcoin on a Tor.

Your system is about fast, cheap and reliable. Being reliable means you have to cooperate with GOV. Yes, maybe some of the bitcoiner don't like GOV, but lots of the users are just buying coffee and T-shirt with bitcoin, they don't mind that much to be under regulated by GOV, as we always are in our daily life. we just want a kind of currency that won't be inflationary as much as GOV want.

And if you're not cooperative with GOV, most of the business in the real world are not dare to accept your payment service, which would bring a lot of potential legal risk to them.

So keep the track record and identity information of your client, keep it highly confidential. If the GOV want it and have the permission from the court, hand it to them. Yes, You will lose some highly private guys, but you will be welcomed by much larger group of people.

The business that have handed the info to the government have usually lost a lot of their client base or at least their gorwth. That people you are labeling as a minority, reality shows they are a majority.

[Dobrodav]

I am messed with idea of fully anonymous, backed by bitcoin system, for some time.
It means, that this idea just flying around, and actually, may be not so hopeless.

And about the name - Why not Credit or Cred ?
I am just like it

[mouse]

In short - I think your proposal is premature, because it just adds to the complexity.

It's interesting, as you admit that the current transaction system of Bitcoin is quite confusing (which it is. Any transaction fee system that cannot be explained in less words than:
"0.25c per transaction" or "0.65% per transaction" is going to appear confusing to most new users).
My hope is that, while seeming to add some complexity, a digital cash system backed in bitcoin would actually remove a lot of complexity for the average user. Much of this will be due to clever integration and streamlined UI. We shall see.

I suggest;

PrivateCash
PrivateCoin

BitGold

It's interesting you say BitGold, becuase in a system such as this, I would probably soundbyte bitcoin=gold, Bitcash = paper money. I do like privateCash and privateCoin. Actually I'm relly liking the word cash somewhere. <something>Cash. Backed by Bitcoin (tm).

And about the name - Why not Credit or Cred ?

Aah yes, a certain beauty in being able to pay in 'credits'. Validates every computer game I ever played :-) We may have to issue credits backed by bitcoin just for the pleasure of paying in them :-)

And if you're not cooperative with GOV, most of the business in the real world are not dare to accept your payment service, which would bring a lot of potential legal risk to them.
So keep the track record and identity information of your client, keep it highly confidential. If the GOV want it and have the permission from the court, hand it to them. Yes, You will lose some highly private guys, but you will be welcomed by much larger group of people.

I think this is actually a good point for an additional currency backed by bitcoin - privacyInvasionCoin. Ok that was being over the top, but I think there might actually be room for a few currencies all backed in bitcoin. Let the markets sort out which.