Rebranding - Using the term Blockchain vs Bitcoin

[Patel]

I think this would really be a great PR move. People say things like "use the internet". It sounds much better to say "Put it on the blockchain" rather than to say "use bitcoin"

The more people refer to the Blockchain as the protocol, and Bitcoin as the currency, the better.

Bitcoin invented the blockchain, the usage of blockchain should automatically refer to Bitcoin.

Bitcoin also sounds like a brand, whereas "Blockchain" sounds more neutral.

I think we, the community, should make an effort to refer to the protocol as "the" blockchain. And refer to the currency as bitcoin.

[R2D221]

You compare the blockchain to the Internet, but I think this is wrong. The blockchain is an implementation detail (a very important one, but just implementation), while the Internet is just the idea. The implementation of Internet relies on TCP/IP. So, as I see it:

Bitcoin = Internet
Blockchain = TCP/IP

And, no, we shouldn't talk about “Blockchain” (which will create confusion with Blockchain.info, which is kind of brand now).

[Gleb Gamow]

You compare the blockchain to the Internet, but I think this is wrong. The blockchain is an implementation detail (a very important one, but just implementation), while the Internet is just the idea. The implementation of Internet relies on TCP/IP. So, as I see it:

Bitcoin = Internet
Blockchain = TCP/IP

And, no, we shouldn't talk about “Blockchain” (which will create confusion with Blockchain.info, which is kind of brand now).

I think the OP is seeking an acceptable term to express the myriad cryptos now and coming down the pike that are based on blockchain technology, for referring to them as Bitcoin won't do them justice. At this penning, the best I'm able to ascertain is bChain, wondering if it, or something like it, fits the bill.

[Eastfist]

Marketing wise, the word "chain" sounds oppressive to anyone who doesn't work with diagrams and flowcharts day in and day out. The word "coin" appeals to people's sense of money and greed. I think "chain" is something reserved for techies who "get it". Hey, at least it's not called "Blingcoin". LOL

Here's one inspiration for how the blockchain was conceived:



I think only video game nerds will get it.

[stellar1]

Not sure if this is how the community has been doing it but I always call it a blockchain when talking about the protocol and BTC when talking about the currency. I think the Blockchain is too good an invention to get obscured by Bitcoin or for that matter anything else.

Thanks

[Q7]

I try not to be that rigid. In fact, it's better to use both terms interchangeably. It's time to claim the blockchain technology as belonging to bitcoin. Whereas, personally I think bitcoin name is more suitable when it comes to branding it as internet digital currency.

[Whitehouse]

You compare the blockchain to the Internet, but I think this is wrong. The blockchain is an implementation detail (a very important one, but just implementation), while the Internet is just the idea. The implementation of Internet relies on TCP/IP. So, as I see it:

Bitcoin = Internet
Blockchain = TCP/IP

And, no, we shouldn't talk about “Blockchain” (which will create confusion with Blockchain.info, which is kind of brand now).

I agree with you. Saying 'put it on the blockchain' is even more confusing. 'Use bitcoin' is fine. I also think blockchain.info should have called itself something else as it is confusing, though I guess it was a smart move from a business perspective.

[koinvict]

You compare the blockchain to the Internet, but I think this is wrong. The blockchain is an implementation detail (a very important one, but just implementation), while the Internet is just the idea. The implementation of Internet relies on TCP/IP. So, as I see it:

Bitcoin = Internet
Blockchain = TCP/IP

And, no, we shouldn't talk about “Blockchain” (which will create confusion with Blockchain.info, which is kind of brand now).

I agree with you. Saying 'put it on the blockchain' is even more confusing. 'Use bitcoin' is fine. I also think blockchain.info should have called itself something else as it is confusing, though I guess it was a smart move from a business perspective.

What about coinbase?  That's a key term in bitcoins... it's smart to align your business with key terms, etc...

But I had the same thought as the OP - why not move toward the "Blockchain?"  I think the term "Bitcoin" is partisan at this point - as it will solely be referred to as a currency.  It's confusing to new developers - those who can help out with the Bitcoin economy don't realize there's a powerful, underlying protocol.

[R2D221]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the confusion here.

[thejaytiesto]

Isnt Maidsafe better than bitcoin in this sense? I think Maidsafe does everything the blockchain is supossed to do, but more anonymously.

[koinvict]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the confusion here.

Designing other apps/protocols on top of the blockchain (big B Bitcoin) can be confused with the currency (little b bitcoin).  There needs to be a differentiation between the protocol and the tokens.

[yatsey87]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the confusion here.

Designing other apps/protocols on top of the blockchain (big B Bitcoin) can be confused with the currency (little b bitcoin).  There needs to be a differentiation between the protocol and the tokens.

I don't think so and don't see the confusion. Bitcoin is the whole system but the coins are what you own / spend. People know which you're referring to given the context.

[koinvict]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the confusion here.

Designing other apps/protocols on top of the blockchain (big B Bitcoin) can be confused with the currency (little b bitcoin).  There needs to be a differentiation between the protocol and the tokens.

I don't think so and don't see the confusion. Bitcoin is the whole system but the coins are what you own / spend. People know which you're referring to given the context.

I agree there's not much confusion now.

But imagine developing upon a protocol called the Dollar and you spend dollars.  It'll become a more confusing term in the future if bitcoin ever becomes a mainstream currency.  The blockchain is MORE than just a currency.

I want to create contracts, social media, and various apps (anything that needs ownership) using this ledger/consensus technology.  The actual world-changing protocol should not have the same name as the currency that stems from it.

Just my $.02

[R2D221]

I agree there's not much confusion now.

But imagine developing upon a protocol called the Dollar and you spend dollars.  It'll become a more confusing term in the future if bitcoin ever becomes a mainstream currency.  The blockchain is MORE than just a currency.

I want to create contracts, social media, and various apps (anything that needs ownership) using this ledger/consensus technology.  The actual world-changing protocol should not have the same name as the currency that stems from it.

Just my $.02

The problem is that Bitcoin was designed as a currency, nothing more. Yes, the concept of the blockchain is a great invention that can be used for smart contracts and the like, but the blockchain used by Bitcoin was meant to log currency transactions.

It's cool that people are using Bitcoin's blockchain for things such as Proof of existence, but I think an independent (i.e. not Bitcoin's) blockchain should be ideal for these kind of projects.

[Finchy]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the confusion here.

Designing other apps/protocols on top of the blockchain (big B Bitcoin) can be confused with the currency (little b bitcoin).  There needs to be a differentiation between the protocol and the tokens.

I don't think so and don't see the confusion. Bitcoin is the whole system but the coins are what you own / spend. People know which you're referring to given the context.

I agree there's not much confusion now.

But imagine developing upon a protocol called the Dollar and you spend dollars.  It'll become a more confusing term in the future if bitcoin ever becomes a mainstream currency.  The blockchain is MORE than just a currency.

In my opinion the currency is bitcoin and the technology is the blockchain. Pretty simple once you look at it that way. Things will be built on top of the blockchain not bitcoin. I don't see the issue.

[pereira4]

I agree there's not much confusion now.

But imagine developing upon a protocol called the Dollar and you spend dollars.  It'll become a more confusing term in the future if bitcoin ever becomes a mainstream currency.  The blockchain is MORE than just a currency.

I want to create contracts, social media, and various apps (anything that needs ownership) using this ledger/consensus technology.  The actual world-changing protocol should not have the same name as the currency that stems from it.

Just my $.02

The problem is that Bitcoin was designed as a currency, nothing more. Yes, the concept of the blockchain is a great invention that can be used for smart contracts and the like, but the blockchain used by Bitcoin was meant to log currency transactions.

It's cool that people are using Bitcoin's blockchain for things such as Proof of existence, but I think an independent (i.e. not Bitcoin's) blockchain should be ideal for these kind of projects.

Yeah, they are only going to make the blockchain slower by suffocating it with too much content. I think sidechains are a bit overrated around here.

[koinvict]

I agree there's not much confusion now.

But imagine developing upon a protocol called the Dollar and you spend dollars.  It'll become a more confusing term in the future if bitcoin ever becomes a mainstream currency.  The blockchain is MORE than just a currency.

I want to create contracts, social media, and various apps (anything that needs ownership) using this ledger/consensus technology.  The actual world-changing protocol should not have the same name as the currency that stems from it.

Just my $.02

The problem is that Bitcoin was designed as a currency, nothing more. Yes, the concept of the blockchain is a great invention that can be used for smart contracts and the like, but the blockchain used by Bitcoin was meant to log currency transactions.

It's cool that people are using Bitcoin's blockchain for things such as Proof of existence, but I think an independent (i.e. not Bitcoin's) blockchain should be ideal for these kind of projects.

Why would you want to use a separate blockchain when you have an existing, extensible technology?  All these kind of "projects" will give bitcoin more worth and intrinsic value.

Use the existing blockchain for EVERYTHING - it makes it more powerful actually if everyone is involved with everything. 

[koinvict]

I agree there's not much confusion now.

But imagine developing upon a protocol called the Dollar and you spend dollars.  It'll become a more confusing term in the future if bitcoin ever becomes a mainstream currency.  The blockchain is MORE than just a currency.

I want to create contracts, social media, and various apps (anything that needs ownership) using this ledger/consensus technology.  The actual world-changing protocol should not have the same name as the currency that stems from it.

Just my $.02

The problem is that Bitcoin was designed as a currency, nothing more. Yes, the concept of the blockchain is a great invention that can be used for smart contracts and the like, but the blockchain used by Bitcoin was meant to log currency transactions.

It's cool that people are using Bitcoin's blockchain for things such as Proof of existence, but I think an independent (i.e. not Bitcoin's) blockchain should be ideal for these kind of projects.

Yeah, they are only going to make the blockchain slower by suffocating it with too much content. I think sidechains are a bit overrated around here.

How will it make the blockchain slower? 

[countryfree]

This would not be appropriate, since bitcoin is unique whereas the blockchain is not.
Several companies are looking into creating their own blockchains for their employees, just like many have intranets.

[Carlton Banks]

The blockchain IS NOT:

• a currency
• a network
• "an internet"

Get a grip everybody.