Topic: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine - page 79. (Read 578565 times)

change the name, cryptonite is not a good name for this great projec.

Oops, yes I meant XCN - see what BF made me do?  It's almost as if he enjoys confusing us imbeciles.   

*ducks*

 

My 'scumbag' comment was (deliberately) targeted at the practice of using deliberate confusion for marketing, not addressed at an individual.


I'm confused here. You were replying to me but this comment seems directed at bitfreak! yet you mention XMR. Did you mean XCN?

I regret not participating in the naming conversation earlier this summer, so I could have concurred with smooth on this point.

But the scumbag accusation is too harsh.  BF isn't a scumbag, he's just being stubborn (which is a *good* thing) and reaching for reasons to avoid doing something that's a hassle and costs time needed for other projects.


You don't see why that's so bad?  Umm, it's bad because Reasons and stuff...  

I already crossposted an on-point example of why, from another thread where I tried to tell a noob about XCN and he automatically and understandably lumped XCN in with BBR and XMR.

XCN has fantastic technology that BBR/XMR can't match - mini-blockchain and unmalleable zero-confirmation safe transactions.

There is no (Great) reason to let those amazing unique qualities be obfuscated by undue association with the CryptonOte coins.

Please take off your #1 MBC Guy Hat, and look at the situation from the POV of an intelligent but underinformed noob.  I don't like seeing this great project needlessly hobbled by an entirely avoidable cases of mistaken identity.

At this still-very-early point the confusion is already actual, not theoretical.  When XCN becomes more well known, the confusion will be 1000 times worse.

You've done a perfect job of shepherding XMR XCN development so far and it pains me to see you making an unforced branding error.  Nobody can be an expert in everything.  Stand firm on technical issues, but consider listening to the chorus with regards to marketing and be flexible in your response.

Actual confusion might be a good reason, and I've been asked about it by people who found the whole thing confusing, so I'm quite certain there is actual confusion.

That doesn't mean you have to change the name though, it's your coin, do what you want. I hold a few XCN, but they're a long term play for me and at this point I kind of doubt whether changing the name is likely to make much difference long term. Just my opinion though.

It would be ridiculously hard if we tried to make our name avoid all the names of other algorithms or what ever else people will complain it is too similar to. It is pretty hard to confuse an entire coin for a PoW algorithm, and it's not nearly a good enough reason to change the name.

I did not say that at all, I just suggested that having the name so similar to popular technology/algorithms might not be such the negative thing people are making it out to be.

Thanks dude, I've corrected the post.

I will host a reliable block explorer as soon as the code is release and I find a web master to 'make it go.'

Cryptonite is pronounced exactly the same as CryptoNight, the proof-of-work algorithm used by most of the CryptoNote coins.

It is confusing. I told you this before the coin launched. If you don''t care (it's not the name of a coin), that's one thing. If you are now saying that you want to use confusion as a deliberate marketing strategy, that seems pretty scumbag to me. I don't recommend it.

Exactly, there isn't even a coin called Cryptonote, they just use Cryptonote technology. So we have some algorithms which might be confused with our coin, I don't see why that's so bad.

BiteKoin would be pronounced exactly the same way as ByteCoin, and in that case I do see an issue. But there is no other coin pronounced exactly like Cryptonite so it's harder to confuse.

Just want to point out the market cap is more like $50k. The coin supply is wrong on coinmarketcap because minichain.info is still down. Current supply is ~11 million.

You should change the name to something less than great because the current name is resulting in precisely the kind of confusion and brand dilution you tried so hard to avoid.  IOW, just about anything is better than yet another [IPA: ˈkrɪptənʌɪt] variant.

It's not "a little overlap."  And Cryptonote is not "another popular coin."  Cryptnote is a family of popular coins, most of which greatly exceed XCN in volume.

It's a stretch to call XCN "popular" at this point, when the market cap is a trivial $23,000 $50,000 and its thread is barely 100 pages.

I know XCN is destined for great things.  That's why I'd like to re-brand now, while the hassle factor is minimal.

You're lucky to have already have such a proactive, helpful community willing to hand you a better name on a silver platter.

We're trying to fix the naming collision, and you are being snotty by dismissing these efforts as "crap" after voluntarily assuming the role of MBC facilitator.

Yes, I considered the possible benefit of riding CryptoNote's linguistic coattails.  But CryptoNote does not exactly enjoy a sterling reputation, and it's best we sidestep the mistaken identity entirely.  Just for the benefit of not confusing the press/media imbeciles, if nothing else.  

I know, let's change the name to BiteKoin.  It's spelled different, so nobody except imbeciles could possible confuse us with ByteCoin!  

Why would I change the name to something less than great? I have no reason to go to all the effort required if the new name isn't great, and so far most of the names suggested are very sub-par. You're lucky I'm even entertaining the idea of a name change at all, I've already wasted more than 12 hours of my life contemplating names and finding something which wasn't already taken. Now it's like I have to go through all that crap again because some people are worried about a little overlap with another popular coin. The name is only shitty if you believe that overlap is very problematic, and I don't. Have you ever thought that maybe that popularity could cause more people to check out Cryptonite?

You're right, I'm not trying to exaggerate and make it sound like a huge problem - the coin is emitted over a very long period of time. However, it's not really incorrect to say that there was and probably still is private miners when the block reward was at its maximum either, since the reward is constantly decreasing. I mean, there's no premine, so gotta get your coins somehow I guess, but I don't see any other reason for not just going with an established hashing algorithm, if not merge mining with one or several of them.

The early miners only got a small amount of coins(Less than 1mill). Around only 5million coins have been mined so far(1 month after the first day mining incident) , and the total supply is 1.8billion.

Or someone could just fork the coin, give it a decent name like minibit or microblock, and replace the m7 algo with dual merge mining sha and scrypt like huntercoin; or even better triple merge mining with qubit or something gpu friendly too, to give the coin a wider distribution. I don't see the reason here for a new algo (m7) except to have private miners, so that a select few can have a mining advantage while the block reward is at its maximum.

Please accept my apology.  It seemed to me like you were attacking me for calling out BF's intemperate "imbeciles" slur.  Thanks for clarifying.

When BF stood firm against the calls for a re-launch because of some tiny initial problems, I completely supported his stance.  There was no reason to let the endless quest for a Great Launch be the enemy of a Good Launch.

And previous to that, I greatly admired his principled flexibility in accommodating the cries for a smaller (nominal) total emission by moving the decimal.

But resolving the naming issue with a re-brand is not (IMO) equivalent to calls for hard forks and relaunches.

I was studiously polite until the "imbeciles" comment.  I'm too heavily invested in the MBC project to just let crap like that slide.

I don't appreciate being told that we'll only re-brand with a Great Name, when 1) the existing name is demonstrably very shitty and 2) I've gone out of my way to provide a Less Shitty/Good Enough alternative in the form of MiniCoin.

As a marginalist, I am motivated by comparative advantage.  I am far from alone in making the case that XCN's disadvantages outweigh its advantages/inertia.  That's not "ganging up" on BF, although it may be perceived that way.

Again, I personally was never confused by the I/O distinction but have since been persuaded to be sympathetic to those putative "imbeciles" who were and will be in the future.  Please, don't tell us yet again about the "well thought process" that resulted in the selection of 'Cryptnite' because WE GOT IT.

We're not saying the name was carelessly chosen at random; we're asking for remedy to the current situation where Cryptonote is taking the BTC world by storm and already creating mistaken first impressions.  I like to back up my claims with evidence, so when a noob posted a spot-on illustration of my point in a neighboring thread, I felt compelled to crosspost it and my response here.

XCN will do just fine without a name change, but we will save some headaches if we re-brand.  If you think my long-winded posts are annoyingly repetitive, how are you going to like seeing the same 'IS THIS A CRYPTONOTE COIN LIKE BYTECOIN BECAUSE I HEARD BYTECOIN WAS A SCAM??" posts here until the Second Coming of Satoshi?   

need a miner for amd's gpu 

I am not defending that. I am simply saying that you have already made your point a few times (in a not so pleasant manner, if I must add). In fact I'm am pro for a name change but no need to repeat things over and over.

People seem to be ganging up against Bitfreak and THAT IS toxic. No wonder why he is reacting that way. People don't seem to understand that the name was not chosen out of a lucky draw but was the fruit of a well thought process. Learn how to read what has been said by Bitfreak himself and stop acting like it's the end of the world!

Yes your messages are too long when all you are saying the same thing over and over. WE GOT IT.

Calling people who understandably confuse Cryptonite with Cryptonote "imbeciles" is the wrong approach.  Why would you defend such toxic behavior?

If my posts are too long for your short attention span, don't read them.   

The one with the attitude is you dude. We understood your point. No need to repeat the same thing over and over. You are cluttering this thread for nothing with your novels.