I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills

[remotemass]

I keep saying that bitcoins only exist as balances associated with a bitcoin address. What is kept is the private key that allows you to spend your bitcoin address bill.
I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills (DGB) instead of bitcoins, but he didn't listen.
Now we have to keep telling everyone there are no coins whatsoever but no one seems to believe.
Why is it so difficult to understand? The addresses have an associated bill resulting from chains of transactions. That bill that tell us the balance of an address only exists beause we keep a record of all validated transactions and rewards are given for that record validation and network maintainance, putting more units of the currency in circulation.
We need to keep making it clear. To generate an address is actually just picking an arbitrary private key and finding its corresponding address.
It's not difficult. It can get really simple, if you understand it correctly and are able to explain it.

[franky1]

I keep saying that bitcoins only exist as balances associated with a bitcoin address. What is kept is the private key that allows you to spend your bitcoin address bill.
I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills (DGB) instead of bitcoins, but he didn't listen.
Now we have to keep telling everyone there are no coins whatsoever but no one seems to believe.
Why is it so difficult to understand? The addresses have an associated bill resulting from chains of transactions. That bill that tell us the balance of an address only exists beause we keep a record of all validated transactions and rewards are given for that record validation and network maintainance, putting more units of the currency in circulation.
We need to keep making it clear. To generate an address is actually just picking a arbitrary private key and finding its corresponding address.
It's not difficult. It can get really simple, if you understand it correctly and are able to explain it.

cash bills.. are reminders of those paper IOU's that get reprinted without limit.

i prefer coins as it represents money thats not a IOU

[remotemass]

cash bills.. are reminders of those paper IOU's that get reprinted without limit.

i prefer coins as it represents money thats not a IOU

I quite agree that it is different than IOU. Unless you see it as cash bills that exist in the cloud and change hands when their private keys change.

[BittBurger]

As far as marketing and adoption, aesthetics, semantics, ease of speech, and a brand name goes, "DigiCashBills" is ... terrible.

Bitcoin sounds good.  99% is in the name.

No offense.

[crazynoggin]

Bitcoin is a lot cleaner sounding than Digicashbills so it makes sense why he would have chosen Bitcoin.  Besides, Bitcoin makes sense because essentially it refers to that it is a coin that is stored in bits.

[DieJohnny]

DigiCashBills WTF!!?!?!??!

blockchain would be in the dust bin of history with that name

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm glad he didn't listen. That's a horrible name from a marketing perspective.  No offense :-)

[DeathAndTaxes]

I keep saying that bitcoins only exist as balances associated with a bitcoin address. What is kept is the private key that allows you to spend your bitcoin address bill.  I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills (DGB) instead of bitcoins, but he didn't listen.

When you "told" him that I am surprised he didn't correct you that there is no such thing as "balances associated with an address" either.  Bitcoin works on the concept of inputs and outputs.  So if 0.5 BTC and 2 BTC were "sent" to the same address they exists as two discrete outputs (valued at 0.5 BTC & 2.0 BTC) in the blockchain not a balance of 2.5 BTC.

Maybe this was a dream where you talked to "Satoshi"?

[justusranvier]

Coins are actually a better metaphor anyway.

Every unspent output is a discrete atomic entity, just like a coin.

Where the metaphor breaks down a bit is that you don't just hand coins from one person to another: instead the sender melts them down and mints new ones that belong to the recipient.

[franky1]

Where the metaphor breaks down a bit is that you don't just hand coins from one person to another: instead the sender melts them down and mints new ones that belong to the recipient.

bit-ingots

or in remotemass's version
digi-gold

all of which are not as good as the name bitcoin

[cbeast]

I imagined I dreamt I telepathically linked with Satoshi's previous life (you don't want to know). Anyways, it was the 1950's and we came up with "Electro-Platinum" or Eplat for short.

[keithers]

Digicashbills sounds like it is a collection agency.

[franky1]

digicashbills sounds like something homer simpson would invent (compuglobalhypermeganet)

[remotemass]

Bitcoin works on the concept of inputs and outputs.  So if 0.5 BTC and 2 BTC were "sent" to the same address they exists as two discrete outputs (valued at 0.5 BTC & 2.0 BTC) in the blockchain not a balance of 2.5 BTC.

When you use a balance sheet or a ledger you also register discrete amounts that add up to balances when you do the math. In the blockchain there are only transactions registered, not balances, but there is nothing tangible in this chain of ownership for them to be compared to a token that can be kept in a digital wallet/file. They are just values correspondent to previous transactions, existing in the cloud, but you cannot in any sense keep them in a digital file, or use it in any way that could be thought of "as sending coins by email". That doesn't exist!
It is much better to think of them as balances, and forget about those internals that make the units look like elctronic tokens and numbers.
It doesn't surprise me that people keep utterly confused about it, because you use the complexity of it to mystify it with obscurantism instead of showing the simplicity of it, that lies in keeping the private keys that contain the correspondent bitcoin address but that cannot be guessed solely with it.

[remotemass]

I think you don't like it because you didn't see it blossom like that.
Believe me, if Satoshi have had listen to me and did never had introduced the wallet file concept and called it digicashBTCill you would love it the same or even more and it would smell as sweet.
Everyone would just type their private key (or pick a new one) with 256 radiobutton-like toggle buttons: to see its address and balance and to be able to send funds.
And people would understand it much better. I guess. But he didn't listen.
I agree that bitcoin as a name is much more fascinating. But that's that.

[Lauda]

Luckily, he went with the current name.

[Zimbabwecoin]

No cryptocurrency longer than 2 syllables has any chance of success whatsoever. Well unless it flows really good....

Bitcoins is an amazing name. It works.  Digicashbills does not exactly roll off the tongue.

It's your lucky day!  Digicashbills.com is available. I just checked  and despite this long thread no one has been willing to spend 0.011 BTC or so to buy the domain name.

[AnonyMint]

No cryptocurrency longer than 2 syllables has any chance of success whatsoever. Well unless it flows really good....

Your opinion(s) of a portmanteau of two small words (or word plus fragment) where one or both of them have 2 syllables, e.g. Ethereum?

[auzaar]

I told Satoshi to call it Digicashbills (DGB) instead of bitcoins, but he didn't listen. .

Agreed, I also prod people to call people 'bunch of molecules', but they won't listen.

[MrPiggles]

No cryptocurrency longer than 2 syllables has any chance of success whatsoever. Well unless it flows really good....

Your opinion(s) of a portmanteau of two small words (or word plus fragment) where one or both of them have 2 syllables, e.g. Ethereum?

Until this post I assumed ethereum was a real word.

Ethereal referring to something like ethereum.

Learn something every day etc.