I speculate that a new name for Bitcoin would bring up prices

[Jonathan Ryan Owens]

Bitcoin as a brand is dead. From all the manipulation and negative press, to the overly nerdy sound when it rolls off your tongue, it's clear that Bitcoin needs a rebrand!

Ideas? 1st place wins 1 ___coin (we'll have a vote at the top) and runner up gets 0.5 ___coin.

Moderators / Speculators: I'm dead serious. I want to start a movement for a global re-branding effort. It would significantly help the value of bitcoin, and it is a speculation. I feel this is the appropriate place to ask these questions, and get the involvement and input from the people who have the most to gain (and lose) which are those in this ITT.

[julz]

I don't agree a rebranding is desirable, but I'm happy to play with name ideas..

My 1st shot:  keycoin - as a nod to the public key cryptography behind it  (cryptocoin is too 'scary' I think)

[cunicula]

'Money'

[julz]

or perhaps, in exchange for goods and services we could give a Financial Unit Cryptographic Key.  

New geeky bitcoin slogan?   'Bitcoin gives a Financial Unit Cryptographic Key for you'

[Vandroiy]

I like "Bitcoin". Two-syllable is always good, and the name is pretty much indestructible now.

And if you think a brand is dead when everybody knows it survived what is soon a full year of chaos, think again. The moment the current trend breaks, which is inevitable since it's exponential, quite a few people will be saying something like:

"What the hell, it survived? Countless hacks and scams, technical breakdowns and a full-fledged financial crash, and it's still there?"

The old name in half a year's time will bring up prices.

[Matthew N. Wright]

If Bitcoin is ever 'rebranded' (which is a ridiculous play on words considering it isn't even a brand and has no representative body) I would vote for it to no longer be a "coin" since it is not a physical currency.

I would be happy if it were called "Blocks".

BitBlocks.

[ElectricMucus]

Nah, in the tradition of open source projects this would only make sense in case of an official fork or merge.

I like Bitcredit

[Bitsky]

I speculate that a new name for Bitcoin would bring up prices

You are not interested in Bitcoin for what it is, but for the amount of dollars you can make by manipulating the price.
If you want to increase the BTC/USD rate, why aren't you trying to decrease the value of the Dollar?

[cbeast]

Renaming has been discusses and there are many options. Naming the denominations between the Bitcoin and the Satoshi would be useful. The term Bitcoin is our brand and like it or not we should not change it lest we appear shady. Besides, when it is adapted globally there will even be different flavors of Bitcoin addresses like the "green" ones we have now.

[kjlimo]

I don't think right now is a good time for a new name....

I started reading this forum thinking the title meant that a new company (name) using bitcoins would bring up prices, which is likely true.

I think we need to get the gaming community to accept bitcoins for subscriptions.  World of Warcraft, Runescape, just to name a few.  If the twelve year olds playing these games could figure out a way to pay for "free" by running their mom's computer, Mom's happy, kid's happy.  We're happy cuz a major organization is accepting bitcoins.

This could definitely have a great affect on the community IMO.

Bitcoins aren't going away, much like I0coins and Ixcoins still exist...  Those could use a re-brand. 

Bitcoin would need to really die out for about a year, and then be rebranded in 2-3 years to have a new breath of life.  Right now, I think things are fine.  Websites accept bitcoins, more and more brick & mortar stores are accepting bitcoins throughout the US.

I plan on getting some in Cleveland, Ohio to accept bitcoins.  I plan to load up on coins and then try to campaign for the coin.

If there are more people like me trying to get the places they go all the time to accept bitcoin, then we'll accomplish the goal of having another currency.

If people just focus on mining, trading, & rebuilding bitcoin.org, that's not gonna do as much.

Just my two bitcoins.

[Revalin]

Way ahead of you:  EnCoin / GEM / RevCoin.  Take your pick. 

IMO there's no point in rebranding until the problems that created the bad image are fixed.  The boom/bust economics may be fixable by technical means (any of the above coins), but the wallet hack problem is pretty fundamental and can only be fixed through education.  To fix that, people need to know the history and rebranding now will be counterproductive.

The way I see it we're still in the beta stage.  Don't rebrand until we're ready to launch for real.

[ThomasV]

<sarcasm>
I speculate that a new name for the United States of America would bring peace over the world...
</sarcasm>

[cbeast]

<sarcasm>
I speculate that a new name for the United States of America would bring peace over the world...
</sarcasm>

I suspect that a new name for Atlas ... 

[Technomage]

I disagree with this. Bitcoin is still mostly unknown even though we've had "massive press" at times. It's not that massive really. When Bitcoin is ready to go more mainstream, the issues that have caused the bad press will be solved. The people who really get interested in Bitcoin and become developers, merchants or users, don't really care that much about the bad news because they understand the issues behind them and know that they can be solved.

For example, Slashdot is a major news site which has published all the big news related to Bitcoin, which are mostly bad stuff, but still I think that the general opinion on Bitcoin is more positive than negative over there. The comments show this fairly well. And the mainstream doesn't really know much about Bitcoin yet.

Bitcoin is a great name, if and when it can actually work to help the mainstream, the name will not be the problem. Most people have no opinion on Bitcoin yet and the majority of people who do have an opinion don't think it's a bad system or doomed. We all have some concerns but in general people view Bitcoin as promising.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Why is the price of Bitcoin going up either necessary or desirable?

[BitcoinMint.US]

Why is the price of Bitcoin going up either necessary or desirable?

Maybe because people don't like to see their spending power dwindling away to nothing?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Why is the price of Bitcoin going up either necessary or desirable?

Maybe because people don't like to see their spending power dwindling away to nothing?

I say again "why is the price GOING UP either necessary or desirable?"

Had BTC never had the speculator and drive bubble which pushed the price to an utterly stupid beyond belief $30USD : 1 BTC people wouldn't have lost buying power.

So the solution to a crash to more sustainable levels after an utterly unsustainable rise is yet another unsustainable rise?

If BTC fell to $1.25 or $0.18 or $2.09 AND STAYED THERE that would be worse than another insanity driven bubble?

[cbeast]

I say again "why is the price GOING UP either necessary or desirable?"

Simple. Bitcoin will always be volatile. There is a big difference between prices fluctuating between 2-3 USD and 99-100 USD even though it's still only a buck.

[kjlimo]

Why is the price of Bitcoin going up either necessary or desirable?

Maybe because people don't like to see their spending power dwindling away to nothing?

I say again "why is the price GOING UP either necessary or desirable?"

Had BTC never had the speculator and drive bubble which pushed the price to an utterly stupid beyond belief $30USD : 1 BTC people wouldn't have lost buying power.

So the solution to a crash to more sustainable levels after an utterly unsustainable rise is yet another unsustainable rise?

If BTC fell to $1.25 or $0.18 or $2.09 AND STAYED THERE that would be worse than another insanity driven bubble?

I hear you, bitcoin has advantages of lowers fees, and secure irreversible transactions.  

However, another selling point can be there are $200 million worth of bitcoins out there waiting to be spent on something.  How can you (merchant) get a piece of that market?

I think it does help a little to have bitcoins be worth more so that it attracts merchants to want some of that currency rather than the alternative of simply using it as a transaction mechanism which is instantly changed back to local currency.

If no one holds on to bitcoins, then they won't have value.  We "need" at least a few businesses who are fine with keeping bitcoins as part of their balance sheet.  This will require other businesses (suppliers) to accept bitcoins, so that it can really be a "currency" rather than simply a transcation mechanism.

Both are good for bitcoin, one without the other just has a different future of bitcoin.  It's tough to use it as a transaction mechanism without a real world price.  And it's tough to have a real world price if no one actually wants to keep the bitcoin after the transaction.

[cunicula]

For the currency to have value, someone has to keep BTC on their balance sheet, but consumers can do this better than businesses. A large number of consumers is better able to bear this risk than a handful of small businesses.

Business' contribution is to provide a non-speculative motive for consumers to hold BTC on their balance sheets. There need to be services out there where BTC offers consumers benefits unavailable through the use of cash and credit card. Consumers would then hold BTC because they anticipate future use of these services.