Quote from: TPTB_need_war on October 31, 2015, 08:17:40 PM

Quote from: rangedriver on October 31, 2015, 11:03:26 AM

I haven't voted, but from the list you've got, love is probably the best IMO. It's a juggernaut providing you can transcend it out of the male-orientated nerd soup of the cryptosphere. Tricky to pull-off yet potentially stratospheric.

That is what I was originally thinking. But I have since become more enamored with 'ching' and 'ka-ching' which seem much more naturally fit to a fungible money. Love is damn adstract and is reach to get people to think about fungible money and love being equivalent. After further contemplation, I don't think love is as general as fungible money. Thus we'd be pigeon-holing (subsetting) fungible money. Perhaps "enlightenment" is more general than love.

Please be aware my tentative (subject to change) plan is I will not launch the currency unti here in this forum, to investors nor to cryptonerds. If my plan succeeds, I will be launching it directly to the users (a.k.a. technophobes) via an application they need.

The block chain network name will be targeted to the cryptonerds (a.k.a. technophiles).

...

	ka-ching	ching	chan
ka-ching		= 1000 ching	= 1 million chan
ching	= milli-ka-ching		= 1000 chan
chan	= micro-ka-ching	= milli-ching

The techno-nerds might prefer:

	ions	axions	bosons
ions		= 1000 axions	= 1 million bosons
axions	= milli-ions		= 1000 bosons
bosons	= micro-ions	= milli-axions

Thinking further, there is a desire for simplification. I think it would be better to pick one name for the currency until, e.g. 'ching' or 'chan', then use only two currency units, e.g. 'ka-ching' and 'ching'. If via block chain updating, we peg 'ka-ching' to a value between $0.1 and $1, then it covers normal commerce values with large whole number quantities than dollars. Then 'ching' would range between $0.0001 and $0.001 which probably about perfect for whole number quantities for most micro-transactions. For a smaller unit, employ 'milliching' and/or a decimal point number.

I am more inclined to choose 'ching' over 'chan' because it is already understood to be money.

The 'ka' prefix (for kilo or 1000) doesn't work for other proposed currency units such as 'loves', 'vibes', 'ions', 'swaps', 'bits', 'nuggets', 'clicks', 'zing', etc.. Instead one can form the smaller units from the largest until by prefixing with 'milli' (thousandth), 'micro' (millionth), 'nano' (billionth), and 'pico' (trillionth). In that case, a name that begins with a vowel doesn't work well as you will be need a hyphen after the prefix. But it does mean micro-transactions with have a more verbose unit, but maybe that is not an issue in many cases (and may have a currency symbols for the smaller units). The range to 'pico' eliminates the need to rebase the primary unit in the block chain as exchange value changes, which is better because for example the dollar may become undefined in the future. Note millichan, microchan, nanochan, and picochan work also, but seems really Frankenstein to mix those prefixes with that suffix.

Although I like "ka-ching" and "chan", I am concerned they might not be taken seriously and there is the chicken and egg dilemma that need users to take the nascent project seriously before many of them will embrace it, and probably need many users to embrace so as to achieve viral branding on a new use of a word.

Noting that 25% of the voters have preferred names with 'bit' in them and noting the dilemma explained above, as well nothing there are many ___coins, but very few Bit___ projects and there can only be one Bits project...

Thus I propose a radical simplication:

bits

This seems to hit both the technonerds and the masses can latch onto this. I prefer this over Bitcoin actually. I am very surprised no one has used it already. As for the "go asian" theme, the Chinese will love 'bits' as much as or more than 'chan', because they respect the role of authority, establishment, tradition, wisdom, and new technology.

Bitcoin's community has never quite worked out consistently whether they refer to smaller units of Bitcoins as mBTC, millibitcoins, mBTC, satoshis, etc.. Perhaps I have seen or heard some refer to bits, but it is far from a consistent and endorsed usage. And the Bitcoin currency symbol is an image BTC and not a unicode symbol Ƀ. This is what happens between a block chain 1.0 and a block chain 2.0. Many errors get fixed. The positive thing about going this direction is many technophobe people will just assume this is extension or upgrade or simplification on the concept of Bitcoin. The negative is it may anger Bitcoin supporters (but that might actually be a good result because people who dish out dogma about open source and then get angry when something is improved with a fork are hypocrites Undecided

).

I propose the following units and currency symbols.

Ƀ	Bits
ҍ	millibits
ḅ	microbits
ʘ	nanobits

There are many choices for symbols for currency symbol units:

Quote

Ƀ
฿
ƀ
ѣ
ҍ
␢
ꝥꝧ
ъ
ƃ
ᵬ
ƅ
ꙏ
ɓ
ᶀ
ḅ
ḇ
ᖚ
β
ϐ
ʘꙩꙫꙭ
µ