I don't like the term "blockchain"

[B1-66ER]

Hi all,
I find the term "timechain" cooler.

In this article at Bitcoin Magazine,
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoins-blockchain-is-the-timechain

The author argues that "timechain" more accurately describes Bitcoin because it emphasizes the fact that Bitcoin is a chronological ledger of transactions.

Moreover, one can argue that some software developers find that blockchain is a bad data structure. I mean, a blockchain does have features for its original purpose to solve the double-spending problem in a distributed system, but for general computing or development of distributed applications, it's better to use something else.

P.S.->Thanks to the members who supported freedom to express my opinion in the "I don't like the term 'crypto'" thread.

P.S.1-> In software engineering, it is considered a good practice to keep a glossary, that's why I'm thinking about those Bitcoin community jargons.

BTC>

[1715148518]

1715148518

[Oshosondy]

The author argues that "timechain" more accurately describes Bitcoin because it emphasizes the fact that Bitcoin is a chronological ledger of transactions.

Block builds on top of each other which makes it blockchain or block chain or chain of blocks. That is a perfect name it can be called. Not time chain because time can not chain together.

Moreover, one can argue that some software developers find that blockchain is a bad data structure. I mean, a blockchain does have features for its original purpose to solve the double-spending problem in a distributed system, but for general computing or development of distributed applications, it's better to use something else.

Do you know the meaning of double spending? RBF is double spending that people use to increase the fee or to cancel a transaction. Because car can lead to accident, should that be the reason we should not use car?

[Dave1]

I think it's more on the software side lingo, that's why it was called "block" chain. As it means, that data is being broken into smaller units.

And that's why aptly called blockchain chunks on data, and it become ordered records.

How can it be a bad data structure when it is chronologically ordered?

[btc78]

The author argues that "timechain" more accurately describes Bitcoin because it emphasizes the fact that Bitcoin is a chronological ledger of transactions.

Well blocks that contian information or in this case transactions are linked to the previous one that is why they are “chained” together. I do get your point and I suppose timechain could be an alternative name however after many year sof using blockchain are we really to change it now?

The general public have not yet even fully understood what a blockchain actually is and now we want to change it already.

[yudi09]

The author argues that "timechain" more accurately describes Bitcoin because it emphasizes the fact that Bitcoin is a chronological ledger of transactions.

I appreciate your thoughts on this, but in terms of which one is more appropriate, I think blockchain is already very appropriate and there is no need to replace the term "timechain" to describe Bitcoin.
Blockchain is a type of database that stores data in blocks. Timechain sounds like transaction speed to me.

[Davidvictorson]

Our energies should be directed towards educational promotions and campaigns awareness of bitcoin, its principles and its advantages. I would care less if the name is change but for others, I mean those who are yet to understand bitcoin concepts, if a name change is done like the author in the article proposes, there will be mass misunderstanding and confusion since the term blockchain is what we all know and is already well understood. And like Dave1 wrote it is just a software side lingo.

[DanWalker]

If I remember correctly you are the one who created the topic, you don't like the term "cryptocurrency" and you don't consider bitcoin to be part of cryptocurrency. Now you keep making threads that you don't like the term "blockchain", LOL.

But I have a question, in the end what can you do to change what you don't like? How can you get people to stop thinking of bitcoin as not a cryptocurrency, how can you get people to stop calling blockchain and instead the "timechain" concept that you mentioned? If we can't change anything then what's the point of this discussion? I have an idea, why don't you take your idea to the developers or wherever you think can change what you don't like?

[vapourminer]

satoshi used the term timechain in early sourcecode from 2008

read it here

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=382374.0

[Awaklara]

I find the term "timechain" cooler.

yeah, that sounds pretty good. but more people nowadays it is more popular to use the term Blockchain. you like it and you can use the term. The most important thing is that you and the person you are talking to understand the same meaning.
Timechain or Blockchain refer to the same meaning. What you share also adds insight for users who may not know the early history. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. some may agree, but some will probably stick to terms they understand better.

[hatshepsut93]

Can you off the top of your head remember any cases of a widely accepted term being changed to something else? That's virtually impossible, so it's a waste of time to even propose it. For years people in Bitcoin proposed renaming units of account, and still it's not happening. It's even less likely that something as fundamental as blockchain will get renamed.

[Stalker22]

But I do not know what general computing or development of distributed applications has to do with Bitcoin?  Bitcoin's core purpose is a secure and decentralized digital currency, and blockchain is specifically designed to address the double-spending problem in that context.

That said, the "timechain" argument is interesting.  It does highlight the chronological aspect of the ledger.  While "blockchain" is the established term, "timechain" might be a more evocative way to think about it for some people.

[nelson4lov]

I don't generally have problems with terms or jargons. I tend to leave things as it. As opposed to your opinion, I'm inclined to the fact that "blockchain" still portray the right meaning. I mean there are blocks of transactions that links together essentially being a chain of blocks. We can argue what terms mean what but as long as the underlying technology is still the same, I don't think it matters that much because someone had to coin it — you can chose to call it a timechain in future discussions, it's no problem.

[peter0425]

I don't generally have problems with terms or jargons. I tend to leave things as it.

Same I think blockchain has been established already and there’s really no point in changing such term. It still applies to what a blockchain actually is even if timechain also does in a way. Besides blockchain is much more catchy, no?   

Anyway I won’t be surprised if there is a community that only calls it timechain after this.

[cipherbreak]

I find the term "timechain" cooler.

yeah, that sounds pretty good. but more people nowadays it is more popular to use the term Blockchain. you like it and you can use the term. The most important thing is that you and the person you are talking to understand the same meaning.
Timechain or Blockchain refer to the same meaning. What you share also adds insight for users who may not know the early history. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. some may agree, but some will probably stick to terms they understand better.

Fancy meeting you here, ChatGPT!  Thanks for explaining the meaning of words, and summarizing a short post, I guess lol

[EarnOnVictor]

Hi all,
I find the term "timechain" cooler.

In this article at Bitcoin Magazine,
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoins-blockchain-is-the-timechain

The author argues that "timechain" more accurately describes Bitcoin because it emphasizes the fact that Bitcoin is a chronological ledger of transactions.

Moreover, one can argue that some software developers find that blockchain is a bad data structure. I mean, a blockchain does have features for its original purpose to solve the double-spending problem in a distributed system, but for general computing or development of distributed applications, it's better to use something else.

P.S.->Thanks to the members who supported freedom to express my opinion in the "I don't like the term 'crypto'" thread.

P.S.1-> In software engineering, it is considered a good practice to keep a glossary, that's why I'm thinking about those Bitcoin community jargons.

BTC>

What do I call you now? A man of conspiracy theory? Thanking people who supported you about your heretic ("I don't like the term 'crypto'" thread) shows you are forcing things. Well, that's if anyone supports you at all because what you proved there was just out of point. Now is "timechain" again believing you know it better. Aside from the fact that the word itself is odd, it's more of a conspiracy theory when it is blocks we fill and build in the cryptocurrency world. How are you building the time to link together in cryptocurrency?

Well, don't let me waste much time on you, I can now see that you are trying to chase clout and turning the upright thing upside down.

[Odusko]

This may make sense to the ops and some other members but the big question is, what about the software because the term blockchain talks about contract and development granting access to undertake certain actions within or outside the network.
This makes a good look and sound blockchain, compared to your proposed timechain.

[B1-66ER]

BTC>

"Blockchain not Bitcoin" — Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan CEO.
“Timechain” — Satoshi Nakamoto.

BTC>

[yhiaali3]

TimeChain or BlockChain What big difference would changing the term make? I do not expect that changing the term will lead to a significant improvement or change in the network. I believe that there are more important developments than changing the term.

Since, as I understand it, Satoshi used the term timechain early on and then this term was changed to blockchain, this means that he found this term to be the most appropriate name for the network, in addition to that the Bitcoin community is accustomed to using this term and I do not think anyone is interested in changing it.

[legendbtc]

I don't generally have problems with terms or jargons. I tend to leave things as it. As opposed to your opinion, I'm inclined to the fact that "blockchain" still portray the right meaning. I mean there are blocks of transactions that links together essentially being a chain of blocks. We can argue what terms mean what but as long as the underlying technology is still the same, I don't think it matters that much because someone had to coin it — you can chose to call it a timechain in future discussions, it's no problem.

Likewise, I don't seem to care too much about the name or terminology of anything because, after all, the name doesn't say it all. What I'm more interested in is what their real uses, applicability, use cases...are and how they will benefit us. Furthermore, these terms have been around for a long time and are recognized by everyone, so arguing about whether you like them or not won't bring any benefit.
Even if we don't like that, but if we can't do anything to change it, we can't fight the crowd, then discussion is just to kill time and not bring positive results.

[adaseb]

I don’t think calling it a time chain would make much sense. Bitcoin blocks vary from either a few seconds to maybe an hour or two. The blocks should be an average of 10 minutes but with variance we know how it can take forever to get a confirmation you are waiting for.

Block chain is accurate because you have blocks right in front and behind one another and these are what keep the ledger secure. When the chain breaks you have a fork or an orphan block and visually it just makes much more sense rather than a time chain.