Finally I got my head screwed on straight.

K.I.S.S.

After thinking this over deeply, I'm reasonably certain the following executive decision is correct.

Netcode	= project name, block chain 2.0
netcodes (or codes)	= transaction currency with higher supply and rates of debasement
netgold	= store-of-value currency with lower supply and rates of debasement

Currency	ISO symbol	Currency symbol
netcodes (or codes)	XNC	Ꝅ, Đ, ᗟ, ᗠ, ᗫ, ᑱ, ᒇ, ᖙ, Ↄ, Ꜿ, ᑝ, ᕭ, ᑢ, ᕮ, ᑪ, Ȼ, ⵞ, ⵛ, Ꮳ, ල, ᄄ, ᄯ, ㉢, Ꮻ, ꖀ, ꗫ, ꗹ, ☷ , ⣕, 𝍓, ྿, ꕥ, ⌨, ⑆, ⑈, ꙮ, or 힣
netgold	XNG	Ǥ, Ꮹ, ဌ, ꓨ, ⓖ, ⛀, ⛁, or ℥ (oz.)

Rationale:

• Block chain 2.0 is generally about net code— code operating in a consensus, Byzantine fault tolerant network.
• Code is the only generally meaningful unit of information on the net, more so than even bits.
• Gold is the most generally known global store-of-value.

It is impossible to directly connote what people think of as money without combining one of the terms they already associate with money, e.g. coin, cash, money, dollars, pesos, gold, etc.. And gold does not associate with transaction currency, thus isn't what the masses think is money.

Thus 'bits' is not money to anyone, except due to its association with Bitcoin, because Bitcoin associated bits with money. Before Bitcoin, bits meant 'pieces' to the masses and "binary unit of information" only to (predominantly male) geeks. Thus the market of people that implicitly think of bits as money is as small as (some fraction of) Bitcoin's mindshare. That isn't absolutely miniscule (yet presumably still small still relative to the 6 billion), but it probably means the association of bits with money grows only along with Bitcoin's mindshare.

The only term in cyberspace that the masses associate with some token of information is 'code'. Code can mean for example an access code, upgrade code, secret code, software code, etc.. Code is thus a very general term for fungible information in cyberspace. Thus code is the manifestation of what money is to humanity in cyberspace. More direct to the point, the term 'code' by itself is the fungible asset of cyberspace to most people, yet 'bit' has no such powerful association in the minds of most people. For example, many people have some concept of what code is and its relationship to cyberspace, but they don't relate a token to information and cyperspace.



Thus Bitcoin was incorrectly named in the sense of being implicitly comprehensible to the mainstream. It could have been named Codecoin, except the later doesn't roll off the tongue as well as the former. And the latter has a less specific meaning "encoded or programmed coins" versus "binary data coins". The latter meaning is probably more attuned to the initial male geek target market for Bitcoin. Simply put, code works better without the 'coin' suffix, yet Bitcoin needed to be more explicit with the associate to traditional money in a nascent market where no such concept had appeared before. Thus Bitcoin was more appropriate than Code or Netcode.

Yet we desire to generalize the market for Bitcoin into general decentralized network coding and applications of encoded consensus metrics. For this, code is the only term I have been able to think of which most people on the internet will recognize as a pertinent form of unit of information. Codes have utility for people. For example, I had to enter the "Promo code" of PRIVACYPLEASE at name.com to register some of the domains.

For those who want Bitcoin to be a store-of-value more than a transaction currency, then netgold has been what they were conceptually looking for. Not physical gold, but netgold. I think those people looking for crypto store-of-value, can relate to the term netgold. It is ironic that I return to the name (netgold) I had decided to use before starting this thread. As the global economic sovereign debt meltdown proceeds into capital controls and chaos through 2020, I think the concept of a netgold will be in demand.