Quote from: THX 1138 on November 03, 2015, 11:16:44 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on November 03, 2015, 10:29:46 PM

I am interested to hear your thoughts or rebuttal to my logic on Bits.

I'm not arguing with it on a logical basis. I can see that, amongst other points, as you say, it "works very well as an upgrade/offshoot to Bitcoin". It has utility, but to me seems lacking a commercial hook.

Bits is non descriptive. It could be bits of anything. We would be forcing people to use a term which is not natural because it doesn't identify what it is.

Yoobits are bits you control. It doesn't say what these bits are that you control, but only that you control them. That is more descriptive than bits but still abstract enough to become money. Money is something we in theory (or desire to) personally control. So Yoobits are a private property. But abstract private property is precisely what money is. Private property that is not abstract, is thus not fungible and can only be traded efficiently using the medium of abstract private property known as money.

So Yoobits captures the essence of what money is which is abstract private property. As Andreas Antonopoulos recently explained, money is a medium of communication.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on November 03, 2015, 11:04:46 PM

...Yoobits are more descriptive than bits.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on November 03, 2015, 10:11:00 PM

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~~something. I think this is yet another reason that Bitcoin is an enigma to the masses (wtf is that 'bit' all about Huh

) 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.