By any other name

[cbeast]

First, the term "bitcoin" gives me a sense of meh. The client is the only part of the bitcoin network that uses the name and it can be changed to any other name and it would still have the same value. This is useful for making fractional denominations with different names. In fact, rather than showing fractions at all, the client could show 0.00000001 "bitcoins" as single "Satoshis" instead and the client could be called a Satoshi wallet, for example.

Second, the term "bitcoin" gives the press a target of something they don't understand and fear. Calling crypto-currency by a single name is like calling anything that is printed, a "book." We all know how fast books can be banned and burned, even in "free" nations. This is the first "money" created of, by, and for the people-of-the-world. This is the first money of a Global Republic. There is just no name that describes how important this technology will become in the next few decades.

While I'm on the name rant, the term "miner" has gotta go. I prefer qikaifu's "auditor." Technically, since we are using Satoshi's original hash, we could simply refer to the bitcoin network itself as bitcoin, but I suspect that many branched versions are being created and will be adopted using the same network. This fact itself may confuse people if we get locked into a name without some established taxonomy being adopted.

On a side note: probably, every government will want a registered version of their own seeded branch used by their own economy, at least for awhile. This can be good for the growth of the network and allow sovereign nations to maintain some control of their economies. Of course, virtual wars will be fought on the network, but hey, that's who we are.

tl;dr
Bitcoin is too big to fail. It needs to be taken seriously and a naming convention taxonomy is in order.

[1714885101]

1714885101

[1714885101]

1714885101

[Atheros]

Can't tell if serious. 

[Elwar]

I would like to call it balbadors after the great Balbador.

[Bitman_Begins]

But the coins are still made out of Bits/Bytes of information - hence, it would always be referred to as bitcoins by some!? I don't really see how you would manage to avoid using the term...

[cbeast]

I'll try to clarify these two points.

1. The original Satoshi created blockchain will always be the gold-standard of cryptocurrency and will be known as the original bitcoin. When people are spending 1 E-12 bitcoins, it will probably not make sense to call that denomination in terms of bitcoins. This has been discussed ad nausea.

2. Business, governments, organizations are free to branch a new block-chain for anyone willing to run the clients for them. Let's encourage them to do so and always remember that people will still always go back to the gold-standard that Satoshi created, no matter how well the clones may succeed. If there is enough incentive, then we can all benefit as "miners." If they want to use these clones as coupons for products or as a state approved currencies, then the "bitcoin" network will benefit by growth of hardware compatible systems. I doubt that anyone would run a clone with more GPU cycles than the original bitcoin client itself.

[Rassah]

I kind of don't like the name "bitcoin" either. Mainly because the plural version is kind of meh. A few bitcoins? A lot of bitcoin? I think the "coin" part of it is weird sounding.

[LokeRundt]

With regards to the "genie out of the bottle" how do you propose to get a critical mass to call it something else besides "bitcoin"?  Yes, if/when nation-states start their own branches/protocols they can/will call them something else, but try changing the name of "bitcoin" and people will look at you saying "what?"

"Umm. . .you know, bitcoin"
"Oh yeah!"

[cbeast]

One problem with the name bitcoin is that the US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress power to coin money, regulate its value thereof, and of foreign coin. The Federal Reserve got around this by using the term "note" instead of "coin" or "money." That alone would be a good reason to change the name in the USA.

[Ridi]

One problem with the name bitcoin is that the US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress power to coin money, regulate its value thereof, and of foreign coin. The Federal Reserve got around this by using the term "note" instead of "coin" or "money." That alone would be a good reason to change the name in the USA.

Except that 'coin' is a misnomer in this case.  Since it isn't a coin, it's the name of the currency, like Dollar, Euro or Yin.

Coin

1.
a piece of metal stamped and issued by the authority of a government for use as money.
2.
a number of such pieces.
3.
Informal . money; cash: He's got plenty of coin in the bank.

I believe that informal in dictionary.com means that it is slang.

[cbeast]

One problem with the name bitcoin is that the US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress power to coin money, regulate its value thereof, and of foreign coin. The Federal Reserve got around this by using the term "note" instead of "coin" or "money." That alone would be a good reason to change the name in the USA.

Except that 'coin' is a misnomer in this case.  Since it isn't a coin, it's the name of the currency, like Dollar, Euro or Yin.

Coin

1.
a piece of metal stamped and issued by the authority of a government for use as money.
2.
a number of such pieces.
3.
Informal . money; cash: He's got plenty of coin in the bank.

I believe that informal in dictionary.com means that it is slang.

I'll retract my argument about the US gubbermint. Moot.