| Cohere | = project name |
| Quanta | = business oriented currency |
| Mojo | = social networking focused currency |
Definitions:
| cohere | = united & consistent |
| quantum | = a share of the whole (a.k.a. quotum) & fundamental unit of quantization (i.e. the generalized category to which 'bit' belongs) |
| mojo | = power so effective it seems[1] magic or supernatural |
[1] "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C Clarke
None of these three proposed names:
- are used in any serious way that has any trademark infringement issues
- could be employed in copycat portmanteaus
- is defocused from its target demographic
Quanta currency symbols could be: ¤, ☰, ☷, Ξ, 𝚵, ⣕, ⌇, 𝀶, 𝀨, ♒, ⏦, ⍊, ⍛, ⍠, ⍨, ⍫, ⍯, ⎅, ⏆, ▤, ◍, 𝄝, Ů, Ʊ, Ɋ, ℺, Ϙ, Ⴓ, Ꝗ, Ⓠ, Џ, Ⴤ, Ⰻ, Ⱄ, ♨, ⚛, ℹ️ ,
A shorter alternative for Quanta is Quid.
Ripple, Stellar, Dash, BitShares
Boolberry, Decrits, eMunie, Unobtanium, Iota, Ethereum, Counterparty, Nxt, Quark, Quantum, Cinni, Monocle, Aiden, Aeon, Nibble, Etoken, Coino, Particle, Heisenberg, Ekrona, Darsek, ...
Appears that Quantum is dead, doesn't even have a market cap on coinmarketcap.com
quan·ta (kwŏn′tə)
n.
Plural of quantum
quantum (ˈkwɒn təm)
n.
1. quantity or amount: the least quantum of evidence.
2. share; portion.
3. a large quantity.
4.
a. the smallest excitation of a quantized wave or field, as a photon or phonon.
b. the fundamental unit of a quantized physical property, as angular momentum, and the smallest amount by which its magnitude can change.
As for the relationship to block chain 2.0 scaling and programmable block chain, the following definition of clicks seems apropos which relates to synergy, clarity/coherence, and being mutually in sync.
I've been trying to capture in the name several concepts in descending order of importance:
And one trait I do not want in a name:
Each of the proposed name ideas captured some of those concepts, but no one name captured all of them. Here they are tabulated by score ranking with ↯ breaking ties and contributing a significant negative score.
+ means very strong and direct association to the concept.
≈ means a weak or indirect association to the concept.
In the table above, 'clickz' although strong in the most attributes, is entirely lacking the most important point of coherent consensus [1] and the association to group synergy [2] (i.e. the alternative "get along well" definition of 'click' and the indirect association of clicking to social interaction in cyberspace) is weak (i.e. not likely emphasized and recognized by most). Also although 'clicks' is a cybergood that is well appreciated, and is fungible in the sense that a click can be applied to a myriad of things, it is not a universal good and thus pigeon-holes the applicability. It is an efficient/expedient means of relating for example microtransactions but at the cost of losing generality. Also it conflates the goods with the unit, e.g. "1.23 clicks" doesn't mean you get 1.23 opportunities to click a mouse. Examples of generality lost are block chain features such as BlocSign, digital assets, virtual contracts, and goods & services that have nothing to do with clicking such as making a phone call or paying a toll booth. Also 'clickz' has no strong appeal to futurists and technophiles. We justify as the optimum way to convey microtransactions, but is it really? If you are in a videochat, then you ask the person to send you some 'clickz' before you give English lessons. Seems that 'clickz' is not really general enough to be money. Facepalm me.
Since it is very difficult to find one name that hits all the desired attributes, I thought it may be better to have a separate names for the consensus network and the fungible value. It seems to be that 'sync' is the ideal name for the consensus network with block chain scaling, high TX/s, and block chain 2.0 features.
...
Edit#2: I am leaning at the moment very emphatically towards project name Sync (block chain revolution) with social media microunit of 'vibes', probably regardless what the votes say, unless I have a change of thinking. I have to let these names sit with me for some time to be sure I have thought through potential pitfalls.
| 1. | Group agreement and coherence, i.e. consensus which is the entire point. |
| 2. | Community synergy, group or network effects as the backing of value and purpose. |
| 3. | Instantaneous. |
| 4. | Technophile technological appeal. |
| 5. | Intangible value. |
| 6. | Permission-less, autonomous control. |
| 7. | Value that is not too abstract to appreciate. Preferably not alien to technophobes. |
| 8. | Fungible value. |
| 9. | Locomotion store-of-value. |
And one trait I do not want in a name:
| ↯ | Similar phonetic misspellings. |
Each of the proposed name ideas captured some of those concepts, but no one name captured all of them. Here they are tabulated by score ranking with ↯ breaking ties and contributing a significant negative score.
| sync | +1, 2, 3, +4 (8 for syncoin) | ≈5 |
| vibe | 1, +2, +5, 7 | ≈8 |
| clickz | +3, 5, 6, +7, 9, ↯ | ≈2 |
| ion | 3, +4, 5, +9 | ≈6 for i-on |
| zing | +3, +5, 8, +9, ↯ | ≈2, ≈7 |
| virtual | 4, 5 | ≈8 |
| metarial | 5, ↯ | ≈4, ≈8 |
+ means very strong and direct association to the concept.
≈ means a weak or indirect association to the concept.
In the table above, 'clickz' although strong in the most attributes, is entirely lacking the most important point of coherent consensus [1] and the association to group synergy [2] (i.e. the alternative "get along well" definition of 'click' and the indirect association of clicking to social interaction in cyberspace) is weak (i.e. not likely emphasized and recognized by most). Also although 'clicks' is a cybergood that is well appreciated, and is fungible in the sense that a click can be applied to a myriad of things, it is not a universal good and thus pigeon-holes the applicability. It is an efficient/expedient means of relating for example microtransactions but at the cost of losing generality. Also it conflates the goods with the unit, e.g. "1.23 clicks" doesn't mean you get 1.23 opportunities to click a mouse. Examples of generality lost are block chain features such as BlocSign, digital assets, virtual contracts, and goods & services that have nothing to do with clicking such as making a phone call or paying a toll booth. Also 'clickz' has no strong appeal to futurists and technophiles. We justify as the optimum way to convey microtransactions, but is it really? If you are in a videochat, then you ask the person to send you some 'clickz' before you give English lessons. Seems that 'clickz' is not really general enough to be money. Facepalm me.
Since it is very difficult to find one name that hits all the desired attributes, I thought it may be better to have a separate names for the consensus network and the fungible value. It seems to be that 'sync' is the ideal name for the consensus network with block chain scaling, high TX/s, and block chain 2.0 features.
...
Edit#2: I am leaning at the moment very emphatically towards project name Sync (block chain revolution) with social media microunit of 'vibes', probably regardless what the votes say, unless I have a change of thinking. I have to let these names sit with me for some time to be sure I have thought through potential pitfalls.
Quote from: what I was thinking
Thanks, I thought also of veritable, known, note, scribe.
When I think about what a global, internet money really is, then it is really your fungible share of the collective set of values of (virtual) society. Thus I propose a new name:
quotum
[n. 1. Part or proportion; quota.]
It is not a word that most people know. I was a bit surprised that I remembered it as the more positive version of quota (where quota implies a limit and quotum doesn't). Also I believe quotum normally implies the portion within a group or community perhaps akin to its implications in forming a quorum.
The name lacks enthusiasm.
Turning my thoughts away from the universal and systemically coherent quality of the fungible bases for exchange values, to an essential good of this fungible basis, I continue to think of fungibility of exchange as a catalyst for change, more than just a lubricant removing friction, and stored up as potential energy to ignite a process. Thus I propose a name from an existing coin that appears to have died:
spark
Seems that brings me right back to:
zing
oomph
Fungible units are really potential energy. When they are exchanged for non-fungible values the energy becomes kinetic.
Other than the swiftness of 'zing', those names don't directly connote what is unique about decentralized ledgers.
But how would the advantages of decentralized ledgers be presented to an average person such they would even care? The main quality they will be drawn to is the immediacy and lack of tsuris due to not needing to enroll in a bank account nor register. Thus any name implying swiftness might be capturing the only quality of decentralized money that they care about. The other quality would be global utility, and any name which implies it is for general use on the internet automatically signals that trait.
When I think about what a global, internet money really is, then it is really your fungible share of the collective set of values of (virtual) society. Thus I propose a new name:
quotum
[n. 1. Part or proportion; quota.]
It is not a word that most people know. I was a bit surprised that I remembered it as the more positive version of quota (where quota implies a limit and quotum doesn't). Also I believe quotum normally implies the portion within a group or community perhaps akin to its implications in forming a quorum.
The name lacks enthusiasm.
Turning my thoughts away from the universal and systemically coherent quality of the fungible bases for exchange values, to an essential good of this fungible basis, I continue to think of fungibility of exchange as a catalyst for change, more than just a lubricant removing friction, and stored up as potential energy to ignite a process. Thus I propose a name from an existing coin that appears to have died:
spark
Seems that brings me right back to:
zing
oomph
Fungible units are really potential energy. When they are exchanged for non-fungible values the energy becomes kinetic.
Other than the swiftness of 'zing', those names don't directly connote what is unique about decentralized ledgers.
But how would the advantages of decentralized ledgers be presented to an average person such they would even care? The main quality they will be drawn to is the immediacy and lack of tsuris due to not needing to enroll in a bank account nor register. Thus any name implying swiftness might be capturing the only quality of decentralized money that they care about. The other quality would be global utility, and any name which implies it is for general use on the internet automatically signals that trait.
I started with 'love' because I was thinking what people really are sending on the internet is information about relative appreciation. Then I got to 'vibe' but it is more of a feeling. What I really wanted to capture is that money is a form of stored energy and also to capture the giving of love, vibes, and likes in social networking. So many crypto names have tried to capture crypto money as a concept of small bits of information (e.g. quark, bitcoin, quantum), but that is just how it is represented and doesn't capture what it really is.
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).
) 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).digitize
metarealize
quantification
...
virtualize
metarealize
quantification
...
virtualize
I have not been able to think of a more direct to the point name which can capture payment, access, virtual quantification, network computing related, social, instantaneous, fungible unit, and some conceptualization of an autonomous, peer-to-peer interaction, decentralized, end-to-end principled.
...
Note I do realize 'clickz' is not as technophile as 'ion', and even though you might think 'ion' is more brandable just consider the other coin names 'quark' and 'quantum'. I think the meaning is most important. The name 'ion' implies some electric charge which is stored and can be zapped, but only for those engineers who have any clue what an ion is. Most people think of ion probably as salt, lion, or just blank non-understanding...
I am nearly certain that Clickz has more direct meaning to your average person than Bitcoin, for those who have heard of neither. And I think Clickz is much less likely to feared as related to fraud and theft. Clicking is a benign, non-threatening activity. Clickz is much more friendly than Bitcoin.
...
Note I do realize 'clickz' is not as technophile as 'ion', and even though you might think 'ion' is more brandable just consider the other coin names 'quark' and 'quantum'. I think the meaning is most important. The name 'ion' implies some electric charge which is stored and can be zapped, but only for those engineers who have any clue what an ion is. Most people think of ion probably as salt, lion, or just blank non-understanding...
I am nearly certain that Clickz has more direct meaning to your average person than Bitcoin, for those who have heard of neither. And I think Clickz is much less likely to feared as related to fraud and theft. Clicking is a benign, non-threatening activity. Clickz is much more friendly than Bitcoin.
Schrödinger, in speaking of a universe in which particles are represented by wave functions, said, The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. This is entirely consistent with the Vedanta concept of All in One.
http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/
http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/
Conceptualization of block chain scaling tradeoffs:
I don't agree with the red part, it's impossible to have an equation for probability (has anyone ever had it?) because it depends on network topology which is infeasible to measure (it even changes every minute).
Consistency in our case is the probability of a double-spend (and the inability to reverse a record of a completed transaction, which is involved in the same probability), since that is the only consistency that we need. Consistency of topology seems to be irrelevant as a direct metric of any consistency that concerns the goal of the consensus.
Your white paper provides an equation for that probability with examples on page 14.
But afaik, you have not yet characterized how A or P declines as the probability of a double-spend declines. Additionally it is not clear if the equation is proven and one potential path towards validating it is to be able to relate analytically how A and P are affected as that probability changes.
Bitcoin has eventual consistency, probability of an orphaned chain has nothing to do with it unless you consider the case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum.
The probability of a double-spend is given by the probability of a chain being orphaned.
It seems the difference in our thinking is you have not yet formulated a metric of consistency relevant to our application of network consensus (a.k.a. Byzantine fault tolerance and coherence). It is all about the double-spending prevention, and not the bass.
Availability in Bitcoin is nine nines, ability to extend the longest chain is irrelevant there.
Ah I am a conceptual (abstract) thinker. You are thinking as a low-level network engineer, thus you miss the generative essence of how CAP applies. The availability of the P2P network is really irrelevant conceptually to how CAP relates to the goal of the consensus network to order transactions in time and prevent (or record and blacklist) double-spends. Thus availability in the relevant conceptual context is the ability to extend the chain AUTONOMOUSLY. If for example in any alternative design the chain could only be extended after tallying a quorum, then availability would require a quorum to be present. The reason that proof-of-work is such an elegant solution to the Byzantine Generals issue, is because the solution is generated by autonomous actors (and thus the entropy of the system is open and not closed).
Until you understand conceptually, you can't begin to understand block chain scaling holistically.
And now I am giving away too much of my expertise for free to a potential competitor to my work. So I will need to stop. I had suggested we work together, because I had been thinking about these issues for a long time and I thought your DAG might offer some unique aspects towards formulating a holistic design for various CAP tradeoff scenarios. But now I need to see more analytical justification of your design before applying any more of my effort. The ball is now in your court. Knowing how people react to my statements, apologies in advance if this seems egotistical to any one, then they need to read this (meaning it would their ego and not mine, I am just stating objectively what I think...no ego involved).
Partition tolerance in Bitcoin is pretty high, this is achieved with the help of coinbase maturity parameter, if it was set to zero we would see more transactions not reincluded into the longest chain after a reorg.
Agreed.
51% attack is an attack for another case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum. Ittay Eyal and Emin Gun Sirer showed that Bitcoin can be successfully attacked even with 33%/25% of hashing power.
I already showed mathematically how to defeat the selfish mining attack.
My stance (unless something shatters my perspective) is that it is now up to you all to formulate more compelling holistic explanation/characterization of your DAG within the context of the CAP theorem, and also provide analytical models.
I don't think I am being paid nor am I a team member, so therefor I shouldn't be trying to dig into the details of that. I have provided what I believe to be the relevant conceptual framework (you may disagree). And I have work to do on my own block chain scaling technology.
Good luck. I'll check back sometimes on progress.
If Consistency is weakened to eventual, then either you have no defined Consistency (i.e. no Consistency ever) or you have an equation for probability of Consistency. If there exists such an equation, then you have to explain how and the probability of either Availability of Partition tolerance is lost when the probability of Consistency is attained. The onus is on your to justify these claims analytically, including convincing arguments about the game theory. Else you can just put it into the wild and observe (and who knows what will happen).
I don't agree with the red part, it's impossible to have an equation for probability (has anyone ever had it?) because it depends on network topology which is infeasible to measure (it even changes every minute).
Consistency in our case is the probability of a double-spend (and the inability to reverse a record of a completed transaction, which is involved in the same probability), since that is the only consistency that we need. Consistency of topology seems to be irrelevant as a direct metric of any consistency that concerns the goal of the consensus.
Your white paper provides an equation for that probability with examples on page 14.
But afaik, you have not yet characterized how A or P declines as the probability of a double-spend declines. Additionally it is not clear if the equation is proven and one potential path towards validating it is to be able to relate analytically how A and P are affected as that probability changes.
Consistency in Bitcoin is the fact that the objectivity is the longest chain. There only state of inconsistency is the probability of an orphaned chain, which declines over time except if the adversary has greater than 50% of the sustained network proof-of-work hashrate.
Bitcoin has eventual consistency, probability of an orphaned chain has nothing to do with it unless you consider the case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum.
The probability of a double-spend is given by the probability of a chain being orphaned.
It seems the difference in our thinking is you have not yet formulated a metric of consistency relevant to our application of network consensus (a.k.a. Byzantine fault tolerance and coherence). It is all about the double-spending prevention, and not the bass.
Availability in Bitcoin is given by even if there are no other active nodes, then sender and/or recipient of the transaction can extended the longest chain and the Consistency remains valid (except for the caveat of the 51% attack).
Availability in Bitcoin is nine nines, ability to extend the longest chain is irrelevant there.
Ah I am a conceptual (abstract) thinker. You are thinking as a low-level network engineer, thus you miss the generative essence of how CAP applies. The availability of the P2P network is really irrelevant conceptually to how CAP relates to the goal of the consensus network to order transactions in time and prevent (or record and blacklist) double-spends. Thus availability in the relevant conceptual context is the ability to extend the chain AUTONOMOUSLY. If for example in any alternative design the chain could only be extended after tallying a quorum, then availability would require a quorum to be present. The reason that proof-of-work is such an elegant solution to the Byzantine Generals issue, is because the solution is generated by autonomous actors (and thus the entropy of the system is open and not closed).
Until you understand conceptually, you can't begin to understand block chain scaling holistically.
And now I am giving away too much of my expertise for free to a potential competitor to my work. So I will need to stop. I had suggested we work together, because I had been thinking about these issues for a long time and I thought your DAG might offer some unique aspects towards formulating a holistic design for various CAP tradeoff scenarios. But now I need to see more analytical justification of your design before applying any more of my effort. The ball is now in your court. Knowing how people react to my statements, apologies in advance if this seems egotistical to any one, then they need to read this (meaning it would their ego and not mine, I am just stating objectively what I think...no ego involved).
Partition tolerance is lost in Bitcoin because if there is network partitioning then double-spends can occur on each chain without being detected until these chains are merged. Bitcoin can't tolerate multiple chains, and only allows the longest chain. There is no way to merge these chains, because double-spends can infect other downstream transactions, combined with inputs from legitimate transaction graphs.
Partition tolerance in Bitcoin is pretty high, this is achieved with the help of coinbase maturity parameter, if it was set to zero we would see more transactions not reincluded into the longest chain after a reorg.
Agreed.
So what we can say is Bitcoin fulfills the CAP theorem, except it has theoretically unnecessary caveats in Consistency due to 51% attack and delay due to probability of orphaned chains. The Consistency delay also causes transaction confirmation to be significantly delayed. The goals of my Sync (or BlocSync) block chain overhauled design has been to eliminate those caveats, while relaxing the Consistency and/or Availability during partitioning of the network in order to provide some Partition tolerance.
51% attack is an attack for another case of spherical Bitcoin in vacuum. Ittay Eyal and Emin Gun Sirer showed that Bitcoin can be successfully attacked even with 33%/25% of hashing power.
I already showed mathematically how to defeat the selfish mining attack.
PS: Looks like we are NOT on the same page. I suggest to spend one day to come to a common denominator of our points of view and after that continue discussion about tangle and CAP.
My stance (unless something shatters my perspective) is that it is now up to you all to formulate more compelling holistic explanation/characterization of your DAG within the context of the CAP theorem, and also provide analytical models.
I don't think I am being paid nor am I a team member, so therefor I shouldn't be trying to dig into the details of that. I have provided what I believe to be the relevant conceptual framework (you may disagree). And I have work to do on my own block chain scaling technology.
Good luck. I'll check back sometimes on progress.