The comments are coming in faster than I can respond, but that is good. I will get to all comments including the very important one from coins101 about the block scaling white paper from the researchers who found the selfish mining weakness in Satoshi's proof-of-work consensus.
NEGATIVES:
...Bits, Bitcash, Ƀitscash, Ƀitscoin, ... Ching, Cha-Ching...
Realize the Bitcash, Ƀitscash, Ƀitscoin are just domains I've registered to catch those who misunderstand or need the association to Bitcoin. They would redirect to the main domain and the site which would not emphasize the Bits suffixes cash or coin. Our new adopters will be branded that one of the currency names is Bits or Ƀits. I explained in my prior post why I think Bits is not a negative. I am interested to hear your thoughts or rebuttal to my logic on Bits.
Why is Cha-Ching a negative for a third currency unit? It doesn't cost us anything to have 3 currency units instead of only 1 or 2. Cha-ching is the sound of a cash register. It is synonymous with exchanging cash or earning money. I think it comes more from my generation (when the cash registers actually made that sound), but even my 25 year old filipina asian gf (in Philippines never been abroad) had heard the term, but she wasn't quite sure what it meant. She hears it in a social context, "yeah like cha-CHINNNNGGGGG" is what said to me. I asked her what it meant and she didn't know. But it has catchy recall powers.
On the internet there are no country barriers, rather cultural and perhaps language. But money even tends to transcend language barriers, because people need to exchange value with those in other cultures.
I rather see money stratifying on type of use cases, e.g. for your $millions in stored value, you don't want that in a currency that is debased 10% per annum (unless the growth of adoption of the currency is outpacing the debasement, but then you are making a speculative investment, and not parking in a store-of-value). These use cases also dictate a demeanor which implies the sort of name which will would appeal to the use case demographic.
| _____________ | |
| Ƀits | store-of-value and large asset transactions |
| Cꙭl/¥ꙭbits | virtual goods and services (esp social networking context) |
| ✨(Cha-)Ching | rapid-fire, unconscious micro-transactions |
Thus maybe what I should do is have 3 merged-mined currencies with 3 different levels of debasement and money supply, so the market can express itself both in terms of naming preferences and also the complex interaction of different currencies with different rates of inflation and velocities of money. When you mine a winning block, you received some of each currency.
| Debasement | Money Supply | Name & Currency Unit |
| ~0% | 1 billion | Ƀits |
| ~5% | 1 trillion | Cꙭlbits |
| ~10% | 1 quadrillion | ✨Cha-ching (or we chan if we prefer) |
The advantage to users of micro-transactions of a higher debasement rate, is that money will have a much higher velocity of money, because no one has a great incentive to hold it a long time (except as a speculative investment). Thus they will have a better opportunity to attain some. The problem Bitcoin and all crytocurrency has is the investors HODL. That is retarding its adoption! It is very difficult to get investors to understand this (Inflatacoin wasn't successful), so the clever way I have devised is to have merge-mined currencies with different debasement rates. Let the HODLers go more into Ƀits[1], but watch them get jealous when speculators[1] made more gains in
✨Cha-ching due to faster adoption. So then a market arbitrage takes place and the market will figure out the balance. This is sort of like a bimetallic money standard effect.
[1] Disclaimer: I am not promoting any expectation of profits. Investors and speculators will likely lose money at the start. Adoption must precede long-term investment gains.