Re: [Ƀits][syᕱᕳ][✨Ching][Cꙭl/¥ꙭbits] Poll for name of AnonyMint's upcoming coin?
I am contemplating the reasons that some voters have chosen "problematic" on the latest version of the poll.
Primarily I think they are concerned about the use of Bits when bits had also been proposed for microBTC (but not widely adopted) and Bitstar uses BITS currency unit. I don't think this is problematic because this is open source community (no corporation has trademarked the names) and no one can own a term except by community resistance to others using a term. Thus bits is becoming more synonymous with crypto-tokens, but no one can rightfully claim ownership to bits yet. Thus which ever crypto-token becomes the most popular with the most widely adopted usage of bits will lay claim to the term. Where this matters is amongst the users, not the investors. So far, the of the vast majority of people in the world who actually know of Bitcoin, they do not associate it with bits. They do understand that a bitcoin is a coin with a bit term prefixed, but most people in this world do not know that a bit is a binary digital quantification of information (two states, 0 or 1). So most people refer to Bitcoin as bitcoins and not as bits, because bits doesn't really mean anything to them other than small pieces of a coin. I think this is yet another reason that Bitcoin is an enigma to the masses (wtf is that 'bit' all about
) and they they thus tend to not trust Bitcoin, because they don't even understand what the name means (it means nothing except it is a bitcoin what ever that is).
So if we name the store-of-value currency Ƀits (with 2 other more social/playful merge-mined currency units, ✨Cha-ching and Cꙭlcash/bits or ¥ꙭbits/nits), then even if the mass market user only thinks of this as "small pieces of money" then at least they will not primarily refer to it as Bitcoin or Bitstar. They have no choice but to refer to it as bits. Thus if we assume that 1% of the people who have heard of Bitcoin think of it as bits instead of bitcoins, then if our user adoption is more than 1% of Bitcoins, then we win the popular adoption of the term bits. Adjust the percentages as you wish.
Even if Ƀits fails in the community, we have the other two currency units as orthogonal. So the project doesn't die for that.
Thus I don't see Ƀits as problematic, but rather leveraging the familiarity with Bitcoin and trying to make it more focused on Bits. Many people might even assume that Bits is some offshoot of Bitcoin. If it becomes popular, they may even assume it is part of the Bitcoin ecosystem (well it is as an altcoin!). So Bits works very well as an upgrade/offshoot to Bitcoin.
Other reasons that voters might think this is problematic include (and this may not be an exhaustive list):
The justification for the multiple names has been provided over past 2 page threads. Readers can review.
My plan to launch to users is both for legal reasons to avoid being an illegal unregistered investment security as I think all altcoins to date are, but more importantly because I think the only way to build something serious is to target usership. Whether my plan is workable or not is subject to other deliberation which I don't want to engage publicly at this time.
I already covered the Sync trademark issue upthread.
Yes me as one developer is an intense challenge. But any way, you won't be worried about that because if ever I get something that is ready for your investment consumption, then I won't be the only developer by that juncture.
Primarily I think they are concerned about the use of Bits when bits had also been proposed for microBTC (but not widely adopted) and Bitstar uses BITS currency unit. I don't think this is problematic because this is open source community (no corporation has trademarked the names) and no one can own a term except by community resistance to others using a term. Thus bits is becoming more synonymous with crypto-tokens, but no one can rightfully claim ownership to bits yet. Thus which ever crypto-token becomes the most popular with the most widely adopted usage of bits will lay claim to the term. Where this matters is amongst the users, not the investors. So far, the of the vast majority of people in the world who actually know of Bitcoin, they do not associate it with bits. They do understand that a bitcoin is a coin with a bit term prefixed, but most people in this world do not know that a bit is a binary digital quantification of information (two states, 0 or 1). So most people refer to Bitcoin as bitcoins and not as bits, because bits doesn't really mean anything to them other than small pieces of a coin. I think this is yet another reason that Bitcoin is an enigma to the masses (wtf is that 'bit' all about
) and they they thus tend to not trust Bitcoin, because they don't even understand what the name means (it means nothing except it is a bitcoin what ever that is).So if we name the store-of-value currency Ƀits (with 2 other more social/playful merge-mined currency units, ✨Cha-ching and Cꙭlcash/bits or ¥ꙭbits/nits), then even if the mass market user only thinks of this as "small pieces of money" then at least they will not primarily refer to it as Bitcoin or Bitstar. They have no choice but to refer to it as bits. Thus if we assume that 1% of the people who have heard of Bitcoin think of it as bits instead of bitcoins, then if our user adoption is more than 1% of Bitcoins, then we win the popular adoption of the term bits. Adjust the percentages as you wish.
Even if Ƀits fails in the community, we have the other two currency units as orthogonal. So the project doesn't die for that.
Thus I don't see Ƀits as problematic, but rather leveraging the familiarity with Bitcoin and trying to make it more focused on Bits. Many people might even assume that Bits is some offshoot of Bitcoin. If it becomes popular, they may even assume it is part of the Bitcoin ecosystem (well it is as an altcoin!). So Bits works very well as an upgrade/offshoot to Bitcoin.
Other reasons that voters might think this is problematic include (and this may not be an exhaustive list):
- 3 currency units and a project name (4 names total)
- my plan to not market to speculators at launch
- Sync has many uses already in the market place
- me as only one developer
The justification for the multiple names has been provided over past 2 page threads. Readers can review.
My plan to launch to users is both for legal reasons to avoid being an illegal unregistered investment security as I think all altcoins to date are, but more importantly because I think the only way to build something serious is to target usership. Whether my plan is workable or not is subject to other deliberation which I don't want to engage publicly at this time.
I already covered the Sync trademark issue upthread.
Yes me as one developer is an intense challenge. But any way, you won't be worried about that because if ever I get something that is ready for your investment consumption, then I won't be the only developer by that juncture.