Is "Cryptocurrency" Painting Bitcoin Black?

[Stratobitz]

 

Because the term "Cryptocurrency" certainly wasn't coined by Satoshi Nakamoto...

Personally I was surprised. I had read the Bitcoin whitepaper before, and referred to it a number of times. But after I went back and looked. I was surprised the word "Cryptocurrency" is nowhere to be found in the whitepaper penned by the unknown Satoshi Nakamoto...

Maybe it's just me, but I feel there's a rather pejorative connotation about the term "Cryptocurrency". So much so in fact, that when I tell people about the work I do, my current development work and current coin project, or I bring up my involvement with blockchain technology, the mining operation I built and ran, the coding I do, and so forth; I nearly always refer to it as Blockchain Technology, or Digital Currency Technology.

I may be biased, [/i]coming from a background in marketing, advertising, and media development; but I think part of "Bitcoin's", mass adoption resistance dilemma-- as well as all other "Crypto-currencies", is the fact that the community and it's user base; refer to these coins, or tokens, as: 'Crypto-currencies'; or A 'Crypto-currency'.

To be matter of fact, I think it's easy to assume most of us here would like to see wider adoption of Bitcoin and other digital currencies. Wider adoption would increase demand, of a limited supply of coins. As demand increase, and supply limited, both coins in current circulation and the fact that only a limited and decaying number of coins will be generated moving forward; would cause the value to rise. It would be a simple supply vs demand outcome.

While I've been a believer in Bitcoin since I first got involved in this Wild Crypto West back in 2013; there were times I had my doubts Bitcoin would be able to hold it's ground. It received a tremendous amount of negative press, (and continues to take it's fair share), and the press was and still is nearly entirely biased against it's very existence- rarely reporting on all time highs, or achievements and milestones, rather, how "Crypto-currencies and Bitcoins" are the cause and source of funding for of all of the worlds problems.

Purchasing Drugs, Funding Terrorism, I need not go on never has involved cash of course, at least according to recent media reports. And so I wonder has the media has done any research as far as how much of an economic share of the overall trade volume, or currency exchange for the purchasing of illicit drugs, or engagement in other illegal activities is? This of course compared to say; the use of Cash. Or Bank Wire.

I doubt there are any accurate statistics. But I have a feeling the crypto-currency counterpart of sending money anonymously online to buy drugs or fund terrorism is a rather thin slice of the "purchasing illegal substances" pie. Or even moreso, funding terrorism, Because; let's face it- there aren't a whole lot of Bitcoin ATMs in the hills of Afghanistan where they can easilly convert those tokens to spendable cash.

Years ago the media slammed drugs themselves, and drug users, as supporting terrorist funding. That these radical groups were in fact cultivating drugs to raise money for their causes. And I am sure they were, and still are.

But all that aside. My point is; I believe that the word Crypto, simply has a negative inference that it carries along with it.

It simply sounds... nefarious.

If CryptoKnight was a Marvel Character he would certainly be a Villain would he not?  One who hides in the shadows, and can move about undetected planning his next evil attack.

While not linguistically related; Crypto to me also sounds a bit burial... as in an underground cemetery hidden beneath a castle where bodies lie in wait. It sounds grim.

Now consider this; Bitcoin, along with it's unknown creator, or creators; Satoshi Nakamoto; never once uses the word "crypto-currency" in his Bitcoin Whitepaper, instead he details out this new payment method as a "Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System".

References to other Works at the end of the Document aside; the use of the term "crypto" appears only once; in the last paragraph of the first page:
 

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third  party.    Transactions  that  are  computationally  impractical  to   reverse   would  protect  sellers
from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers.

That single instance is the only time Nakamoto uses the word in an unrelated form.

Nakamoto reinforces that Bitcoin is an "Electronic Payment System".   The Bitcoin itself is defined as an "Electronic Coin".  Repeatedly he uses terms like "Electronic Payments", with payments being "Digitally Signed".

Even in Section 10:  Privacy:     Nakamoto never once uses the word term crypto in conjunction with another term or noun. He rather outlines his model for privacy in terms of Public Keys, Private Keys, a person's Identity, and Trusted Third Parties.

I think any marketing expert would likely agree that an "Electronic Payment System" or a "Digital Currency" is far more marketable, and likely would be more widely accepted. And  more importantly the use of a less "secretive" term; would likely lead to an increased and faster adoption rate.  

To the neophyte who knows nothing about blockchain technologies and what they could potentially offer the global economic system, or in fact reshape it for the better of society; 'Crypto' may sound a bit untrustworthy. As if it in and of itself, has something to hide.

And that is something most people don't want to admit to. That they have skeletons in the closet.

That they need to adopt, have, and utilize a payment system that offers anonymity. That they support it... because they need their activities, where they spend their money, and what they spend it on, to be forever hidden in the shadows of the crypto-graphic world. It would raise eyebrows... no doubt.

Perhaps it's time we start to think about how the word 'Crypto-currency' sounds, from a marketing and mass adoption standpoint; in comparison to what Nakamoto had himself originally proposed:

An Electronic Cash System.

Or perhaps A Digital Currency System.

Strato
3/1/2018
 
NOTE: I originally posted this in Economics (Sorry for the cross-post Mod's can remove it if need be). Really the wrong forum for this discussion, hopefully it sparks some discussion here.

[1714174217]

1714174217

[1714174217]

1714174217

[1714174217]

1714174217

[1714174217]

1714174217

[Oliveir]

They say Satoshi created Bitcoin, but as of today some bitcoin was torn into pieces so that they could create some tokens or coins, since they can not just create token out of the blue.

[hatshepsut93]

Some time ago I've asked a similar question, you can read the discussion here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2547331

I personally think that "cryptocurrency" is not the best term from psychological point of view, since the "crypto" part doesn't not reflect the core principle of Bitcoin - decentralized, open peer to peer network and the "currency" part ignores the fact that Bitcoin's protocol can be used for some other purposes like timestamping, smart contracts, etc.

[reactorjuno]

I prefer referring to Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin etc. as digital currencies, or digital money.
As for privacy, not all coins are perfect for this purpose. It is no secret now that Bitcoin is not really a coin for privacy.
For real privacy Monero and Verge are the ones to get.

[romanovst]

Some time ago I've asked a similar question, you can read the discussion here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2547331

I personally think that "cryptocurrency" is not the best term from psychological point of view, since the "crypto" part doesn't not reflect the core principle of Bitcoin - decentralized, open peer to peer network and the "currency" part ignores the fact that Bitcoin's protocol can be used for some other purposes like timestamping, smart contracts, etc.

Personally I like this term "cryptocurrency" and it sounds appropriate to me. Also, it does not make any sense to change this term now as people have got used it. If we change the name now, it will cause a lot of confusion among the potential investors. People going to launch their alt coins may take a lesson from this though. They should plan the name accordingly considering its features and benefits.

Also, the name hardly matters. Most of the investors are concerned about the profit they are making with the crypto.

[Stratobitz]

It's far too late to drop the cryptocurrency moniker, the thing is even if it sounds nefarious it will either double down on that or make that natural thought disappear. Once something holds enough representation of a word we think of the product as the word or associate it with it. When bitcoin continues to be heard everyday it will slowly but surely change this preconception either for the good or for the bad.

I agree the term is stuck hand in hand with Bitcoin moving forward.

I'm curious who coined the term. As the Nakamoto whitepaper never references it; and I don't think it had been used before Bitcoin generated it first block.

Wondering if it was in fact the news agencies; who; are as mentioned in my posts, highly biased to the most negative degree, against anything good regarding Bitcoin.

Strato

[Hydrogen]

Offtopic: I always thought hurricanes should have more frightening naming conventions standardized to encourage citizens to flee in the event of an emergency. Hurricanes typically have mild sounding names like "Hurricane Katrina" which make them sound like friendly and benevolent natural disasters. Perhaps naming conventions such as naming them "Hurricane Apopthis" or other ominous sounding names would encourage people to take them more seriously.

I agree that the term "crypto currency" is frightening to many. Crypto sounds like a math term which could involve numbers and thinking(scary!). Both are fairly frightening concepts to the general public which could make bitcoin and altcoins like negative sounding phenomenon.

Its too bad socialists and communists constantly use terms such as "the peoples army". It might be cool if bitcoin could be rebranded "the peoples currency" or something similar. Maybe we could call label bitcoin "The Money of Freedom" or a better term because I suck @ coming up with names. A better name might be a good idea. But finding something people can agree on that is intuitive and natural with without diluting the wonderful history of crypto. Its not such an easy think to accomplish I'm thinking.

[Stratobitz]

Offtopic: I always thought hurricanes should have more frightening naming conventions standardized to encourage citizens to flee in the event of an emergency. Hurricanes typically have mild sounding names like "Hurricane Katrina" which make them sound like friendly and benevolent natural disasters. Perhaps naming conventions such as naming them "Hurricane Apopthis" or other ominous sounding names would encourage people to take them more seriously.

I agree that the term "crypto currency" is frightening to many. Crypto sounds like a math term which could involve numbers and thinking(scary!). Both are fairly frightening concepts to the general public which could make bitcoin and altcoins like negative sounding phenomenon.

Its too bad socialists and communists constantly use terms such as "the peoples army". It might be cool if bitcoin could be rebranded "the peoples currency" or something similar. Maybe we could call label bitcoin "The Money of Freedom" or a better term because I suck @ coming up with names. A better name might be a good idea. But finding something people can agree on that is intuitive and natural with without diluting the wonderful history of crypto. Its not such an easy think to accomplish I'm thinking.

I Vote we go with Nakamoto's original Naming Convention:

An Electronic Payment System.

I typically refer to it as a "Digital Currency" which I think is more marketable.

Regardless Cryptocurrency is something the entire community I feel should start to shy away from. Perhaps reserving it for coins which are truly obfuscated in terms of their anonimity and tracability - coins like Monero.

But Digital Currency, or Digital Coins... or as Nakamoto proposed, Electronic Payments and Electronic Coins; seem far better.

I actually found this; which has been posted a few times a few years ago from what I can find.
In 1996; the NSA Published a Document called:

"How to Make a Mint : The Cryptography of Anonamous Electronic Cash"

I posted the PDF to my Google+ Page and the ABOVE is a direct link.
Interesting document.

Cheers!

Strato

[odolvlobo]

Here is an earlier discussion similar to this one: Virtual currency, Cryptocurrency, how about "network currency"?

Cryptocurrency seems like an appropriate name to me because the currency is based on cryptography. The problem with "digital currency" or "electronic currency" is that every modern currency is digital and electronic.

Here is the earliest use of the term cryptocurrency that I could find on bitcointalk, in a post by satoshi, though I expect it was coined by the cypherpunks earlier and not here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238.0

[Stratobitz]

Here is an earlier discussion similar to this one: Virtual currency, Cryptocurrency, how about "network currency"?

Cryptocurrency seems like an appropriate name to me because the currency is based on cryptography. The problem with "digital currency" or "electronic currency" is that every modern currency is digital and electronic.

Here is the earliest use of the term cryptocurrency that I could find on bitcointalk, in a post by satoshi, though I expect it was coined by the cypherpunks earlier and not here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238.0

Here is an earlier discussion similar to this one: Virtual currency, Cryptocurrency, how about "network currency"?

Cryptocurrency seems like an appropriate name to me because the currency is based on cryptography. The problem with "digital currency" or "electronic currency" is that every modern currency is digital and electronic.

Here is the earliest use of the term cryptocurrency that I could find on bitcointalk, in a post by satoshi, though I expect it was coined by the cypherpunks earlier and not here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238.0

Good find. I don't disagree that Cryptocurrency doesn't fit per se. I only think it's a bit "unmarketable".

Try to think of any highly successful "Crypto" named products that went main stream... it just has dark undertones.

But I do agree it is an accurate descriptor, just not advertisable.

To add to your find... here is a link to a Wiki Page on the first instance of a digital cash proposal called eCash, - in 1986.

1986... Was the internet even around? Lol....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash

Cheers!

Strato

[Similificator]

I get your point man, and I really do understand why Satoshi did not care to use the word crypto that much. Because if we think about it, the word crypto really has nothing to do with bitcoins or any altcoins since the ideologies are far from the word crypto itself. I think that the man or the people who have coined this word crypto(which came from the word cryptography) basically based it on the whitepaper itself. And thinking that crypto is cooler to hear and easier to verbalize, plus the fact that cryptography means "the art of writing or solving codes.", is most probably the reason why they preferred to use it and why the other people using bitcoins adopted or accepted the word crypto to generalize all these digital currencies. That's just a guess though.

Anyways, removing or changing the word crypto nowadays is something impossible and if not, would take a lot of effort and a whole lot of time. But if this thought was raised a few years ago, I think that it could be possible to change this name.

Great thought by the way, if only I had smerits left, I would've probably shared some.


EDIT : I saw I had merits so I merited. great post.

[jseverson]

I'm guessing it was coined that because both crypto and currency begins with 'c'? Then again, ciphercurrency could have worked just as well, and probably even sounds better. Then again, the c's are pronounced differently in that case.

Either way, I haven't seen the term cryptocurrency being at all detrimental when it comes to the general public. Most probably don't even know what it means. Ask them what Bitcoin is and they'll likely say it's internet money or computer money or something. They likely just view it as jargon.

I guess one instance of it being a negative is the recent Bill Gates AMA, when he assumed all cryptos are focused on privacy because of its name, and are thus easy for criminals to exploit.

I personally wouldn't be against changing it, but I don't feel like it will help.