Weecoin, as Minicoin is already taken.
Wee-wee-coin, as it's not a shitcoin 
Topic: [ANN][XCN] Cryptonite | 1st mini-blockchain coin | M7 PoW | No Premine - page 83. (Read 578565 times)
August 30, 2014, 08:50:13 AM
August 30, 2014, 08:48:54 AM
It took us a very long time to find a good name which hadn't already been used, and the domain was still available. I also really like the logo we have, which I paid to have made. At this point it would be a total pain to change the name, but if you want to call it MiniCoin as a secondary name and redirect one or more of those domains to cryptonite.info I wouldn't be against it. Personally I just don't think changing the name would really benefit us very much, I think there are far more important things to focus on, and if the name is good enough now I see no reason to mess with it.
I'm sorry, but it's not a good name. You say it was chosen to avoid confusion, however there are many people who are confused because of the very name you chose (due to the already existing cryptonotes and cryptonight). The name does cause confusion while doing nothing to describe the function of the coin. Also, just because you paid for a logo doesn't make it good. It looks more like a 'v' than a 'c', imo.
My idea for a name: deoxyribonucleic acid. It's a really tiny chain, there's no way anyone is using this as a coin name, and you have an awesome ticker (DNA). I know, it sucks, but it's still better than cryptonite.
August 30, 2014, 08:39:56 AM
"weecoin" isnte better name than cryptonite. I like curent name and I think there is no need changing it...
August 30, 2014, 08:38:09 AM
Do you guys talking about new clone or take over this coin from bitfreak and change its name to WeeCoin?
August 30, 2014, 08:01:11 AM
#Name change
If we're going to change the name, and I say if, we must make sure it's the correct name. Naming things is an art of it's own.BusinessCoin / Bizcoin / TradeCoin - all taken.
Weecoin, as Minicoin is already taken.
WeeCoin actually sounds pretty good imo, it rises interest while at the same time being unique, descriptive and name-like. If we're going to change the name, and I say if, we must make sure it's the correct name. Naming things is an art of it's own.
Weecoin, as Minicoin is already taken.
August 30, 2014, 07:54:46 AM
There was a briefly a previous MiniCoin (just as there was briefly a previous ByteCoin), but it's gone and never coming back.
See the thing is, we purposely avoided choosing any name which had already been used by another coin. I'm sure that even if MiniCoin is totally dead, there are still many remnants of it on the internet which will cause confusion for people. It took us a very long time to find a good name which hadn't already been used, and the domain was still available. I also really like the logo we have, which I paid to have made. At this point it would be a total pain to change the name, but if you want to call it MiniCoin as a secondary name and redirect one or more of those domains to cryptonite.info I wouldn't be against it. Personally I just don't think changing the name would really benefit us very much, I think there are far more important things to focus on, and if the name is good enough now I see no reason to mess with it.When I tell people about this coin, I have to use the qualifier 'with a c-, not like in superman, and also with an -ite, not night, like, you know, the dark time after the sun goes down' and they say, 'oh it's like bytecoin or monero!' and I say 'no it's an all new POW called M7' and they say 'then why's it named after their POW?' and I say again 'no, it's spelled with an -ite' and they say 'oh like superman!!' and then I give up and change the subject.
August 30, 2014, 06:36:48 AM
#Name change
If we're going to change the name, and I say if, we must make sure it's the correct name. Naming things is an art of it's own.BusinessCoin / Bizcoin / TradeCoin - all taken.
Weecoin, as Minicoin is already taken.
If we're going to change the name, and I say if, we must make sure it's the correct name. Naming things is an art of it's own.
Weecoin, as Minicoin is already taken.
August 30, 2014, 03:37:27 AM
OK, it seems clear no interest
Supernetwork IPO on Poloniex
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8592943
I didn't say I had no interest in the whole supernetwork thing, that does seem like an interesting idea. I just don't think the anonymity scheme you have developed is very compelling, it has too many assumptions which will never hold true in the real world, double spending prevents it from working as you imagine.Supernetwork IPO on Poloniex
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8592943
Perhaps if james explains the parts you do not understand a little better. He had the same problem with the darkcoin developers, at first they couldnt grasp the concept ad then finally they eventually understood. There is in irc log of that somewhere in the btcd thread. I think this is a great oppurtunity for cryptonite
August 30, 2014, 02:12:29 AM
OK, it seems clear no interest
Supernetwork IPO on Poloniex
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8592943
I didn't say I had no interest in the whole supernetwork thing, that does seem like an interesting idea. I just don't think the anonymity scheme you have developed is very compelling, it has too many assumptions which will never hold true in the real world, double spending prevents it from working as you imagine. Supernetwork IPO on Poloniex
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8592943
August 30, 2014, 01:58:51 AM
If you trust the sender to to double spend, then you don't need to put the transaction on the blockchain at all. You can just pass the signed tx along as a bearer instrument to someone else, entirely off the blockchain. If they trust you, then they may accept it without commiting it to the blockchain, and so on. At which point the transaction is far removed from the original spender.
As far as I can tell, that's the only way transactions get unlinked.
I don't really find this compelling, because the trust premise seems largely if not entirely implausible to me, but given the spending limits in XCN it could possibly have some workability. If the spending limit is deep enough (as in really f'n deep) then maybe you trust the sender and just pass the transaction along. And then maybe the recipient sees that deep spending limit still there and passes it along again. Maybe. This assumes (somewhat, at least) spending limits are secure.
Yes that's what I thought, and I don't find it very compelling either. But you make an interesting point about withdrawal limits maybe being able to make it more workable, at least in that situation the receiver can safely wait some period of time before claiming the transaction.As far as I can tell, that's the only way transactions get unlinked.
I don't really find this compelling, because the trust premise seems largely if not entirely implausible to me, but given the spending limits in XCN it could possibly have some workability. If the spending limit is deep enough (as in really f'n deep) then maybe you trust the sender and just pass the transaction along. And then maybe the recipient sees that deep spending limit still there and passes it along again. Maybe. This assumes (somewhat, at least) spending limits are secure.
Supernetwork IPO on Poloniex
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8592943
James
August 30, 2014, 01:27:10 AM
There was a briefly a previous MiniCoin (just as there was briefly a previous ByteCoin), but it's gone and never coming back.
See the thing is, we purposely avoided choosing any name which had already been used by another coin. I'm sure that even if MiniCoin is totally dead, there are still many remnants of it on the internet which will cause confusion for people. It took us a very long time to find a good name which hadn't already been used, and the domain was still available. I also really like the logo we have, which I paid to have made. At this point it would be a total pain to change the name, but if you want to call it MiniCoin as a secondary name and redirect one or more of those domains to cryptonite.info I wouldn't be against it. Personally I just don't think changing the name would really benefit us very much, I think there are far more important things to focus on, and if the name is good enough now I see no reason to mess with it. August 30, 2014, 01:20:38 AM
If you trust the sender to to double spend, then you don't need to put the transaction on the blockchain at all. You can just pass the signed tx along as a bearer instrument to someone else, entirely off the blockchain. If they trust you, then they may accept it without commiting it to the blockchain, and so on. At which point the transaction is far removed from the original spender.
As far as I can tell, that's the only way transactions get unlinked.
I don't really find this compelling, because the trust premise seems largely if not entirely implausible to me, but given the spending limits in XCN it could possibly have some workability. If the spending limit is deep enough (as in really f'n deep) then maybe you trust the sender and just pass the transaction along. And then maybe the recipient sees that deep spending limit still there and passes it along again. Maybe. This assumes (somewhat, at least) spending limits are secure.
Yes that's what I thought, and I don't find it very compelling either. But you make an interesting point about withdrawal limits maybe being able to make it more workable, at least in that situation the receiver can safely wait some period of time before claiming the transaction. As far as I can tell, that's the only way transactions get unlinked.
I don't really find this compelling, because the trust premise seems largely if not entirely implausible to me, but given the spending limits in XCN it could possibly have some workability. If the spending limit is deep enough (as in really f'n deep) then maybe you trust the sender and just pass the transaction along. And then maybe the recipient sees that deep spending limit still there and passes it along again. Maybe. This assumes (somewhat, at least) spending limits are secure.
August 30, 2014, 01:18:35 AM
I think the name cryptonite is perfect! You have to have something wrong with you if you read your "I" as "o's"
Name is fine, development is key.
Id love to see this coin part of the btcd supernetwork, bitfreak is one of the best developers I know, and has solved some real world problems in crypto.
Imagine the future possibilities? Apple/android entire cryptonite blockchain on your mobile? Mobile staking? The innovation of this coin is simple amazing, join forces with btcd and my words cant even explain how perfect this will be.
Name is fine, development is key.
Id love to see this coin part of the btcd supernetwork, bitfreak is one of the best developers I know, and has solved some real world problems in crypto.
Imagine the future possibilities? Apple/android entire cryptonite blockchain on your mobile? Mobile staking? The innovation of this coin is simple amazing, join forces with btcd and my words cant even explain how perfect this will be.
This coin is 100% proof of work. There will be no "mobile staking." Full nodes on mobiles is eminently possible, however.
The name is OK but could use benefit from improvement. In either case, I agree that development is key.
If there is something to BTCD's 'teleport' and 'telepods' that can make XCN anonymous, these coins may work together like peanut butter and chocolate.
Quote
Poll:
1) Cryptonite is fine, and we're stuck with it anyways.
2) Cryptonite is confusing, let's change it to MiniCoin or MiniBlock before it's too late.
3) Isn't Cryptonite the proof of work that Monero uses?
4) No, Cryptonite is the technology proposal that Bytecoin implemented.
5) Wait - whut?!? LAWL!(?)
1) Cryptonite is fine, and we're stuck with it anyways.
2) Cryptonite is confusing, let's change it to MiniCoin or MiniBlock before it's too late.
3) Isn't Cryptonite the proof of work that Monero uses?
4) No, Cryptonite is the technology proposal that Bytecoin implemented.
5) Wait - whut?!? LAWL!(?)
August 30, 2014, 01:15:17 AM
Actually some of the most successful coins have changed their names. XMR, XC, DRK come to mind. Mini block coin (MBC or XMB) is the obvious, kitsch-free, technically pure, name.
Also "cryptonite" misleadingly implies association with the technology of cryptonote protocol coins, the hash algorithm of which is typically cryptonight.
Also "cryptonite" misleadingly implies association with the technology of cryptonote protocol coins, the hash algorithm of which is typically cryptonight.
Aminorex is correct, as usual. It's still early enough to change the name, and such a change is warranted. ((((BitFreak)))), please hear our case:
The market cap is piddling and the thread is barely 100 pages. Yes, we are asking BitFreak to accept pushback from the community and endure no small amount of PITA hassle, but aminorex and I are in agreement on the matter and we are not noobs who would request such a great favor lightly.
I don't hate 'cryptonite' but it's silly to resign ourselves to entirely avoidable confusion with, and resentment from, the cryptonOte/CryptoNight camps.
Why do my favorite two altcoins, xmr and xcn, have to use names that are non-interchangable homophones?
As much as I love to complain without suggesting solutions, this time is different. I have divined for us the perfect new name and taken the initiative to register it:
MINI-BLOCKCHAIN + BITCOIN = MINICOIN
There was a briefly a previous MiniCoin (just as there was briefly a previous ByteCoin), but it's gone and never coming back. These domains belong to us now:
MiniCo.in (general information)
MiniCoin.info (blockchain explorer)
MiniCoin.io (web wallet)
Changing the name of a very new coin with a tiny market cap and limited community mindshare is not convenient, but not a hard fork either.
IMO changing the XCN's name to MiniCoin or MiniChain at community behest would demonstrate great maturity and forbearance on BitFreak's part, which in turn would reflect very positively on his exceedingly innovative and brilliantly executed mini-blockchain project.
As a Hodor of >1 day worth of XCN mining I share a goodly sum of the non-trivial risk of re-branding, but am nevertheless confident ditching 'cryptonite' in favor of 'MiniCoin' (or 'MiniChain') is a smart move for the medium/long term, even at considerable cost in the short term.
BitFreak has a million things to do for XCN besides entertaining name changes, but perhaps he can be persuaded by conditional pledges of support contingent on a nomenclature rethink.
I am willing to escrow 25,000 XCN, to be released to the dev fund (IE catia) upon abandonment of the sub-optimal initial 'cryptonite' brand.
I know and do not discount the fact that BF & Co put a lot of time and effort into choosing 'cryptonite' but maintaining a label isn't the point of this experiment.
Luckily the press (not even CoinDesk) has yet to say much about CryptoNote, CryptoNite, CryptoNight, and CryptoKnight. Thus, we may still avoid an upcoming crypto-imbrogio which has the potential to reduce all but the sharpest aminorex/Satoshi/Linus types to quivering heaps of uncertainty.
I just dont have time to spend researching about every coin and to be honest when I heard cryptonite I though someone was talking about the cryptonote PoW. But when I realized they meant a coin, I just assumed it was yet another cryptonote fork like the quazar, fantom, duck coin, when does it stop? If you make a coin, it should at least do something new.
Only recently did I realize cryptonite was not a cryptonote coin. The fact its symbol is syntactically so close to all the other crytonotes doesnt help either.
So, as a pretty objective feedback, I think this confusion will be an issue and prevent establishing a clear Brand position. The more "distance" there is in the name from others, the better and if it also happens to convey the unique advantage of the Brand, even more so.
It also doesnt have to make any direct sense and actually something indirect could be more Brandable.
I just realized I never bought any cryptonite so I just got a few.
James
P.S. What about a name to mean small, like "Nano" or even "Pico" or "Femto"
August 30, 2014, 01:14:50 AM
cryptonite is fine for me, but if we want to attract serious investors, I think a name change would be fine as the proposed @iCEBREAKER
August 30, 2014, 01:10:43 AM
why not have a poll to decide if re-branding is needed ? As far as i can tell, the community wants re branding but developer doesn't want to. Therefore developer is ignoring community request ? Shall we make a poll to find out ?
This will not work as 0-post sockpuppets can vote...i don't think newbie account can vote. They need certain activity level to vote
August 30, 2014, 01:08:32 AM
why not have a poll to decide if re-branding is needed ? As far as i can tell, the community wants re branding but developer doesn't want to. Therefore developer is ignoring community request ? Shall we make a poll to find out ?
This will not work as 0-post sockpuppets can vote... August 30, 2014, 01:05:14 AM
why not have a poll to decide if re-branding is needed ? As far as i can tell, the community wants re branding but developer doesn't want to. Therefore developer is ignoring community request ? Shall we make a poll to find out ?
August 30, 2014, 12:47:49 AM
I think the name cryptonite is perfect! You have to have something wrong with you if you read your "I" as "o's"
Name is fine, development is key.
Id love to see this coin part of the btcd supernetwork, bitfreak is one of the best developers I know, and has solved some real world problems in crypto.
Imagine the future possibilities? Apple/android entire cryptonite blockchain on your mobile? Mobile staking? The innovation of this coin is simple amazing, join forces with btcd and my words cant even explain how perfect this will be.
Name is fine, development is key.
Id love to see this coin part of the btcd supernetwork, bitfreak is one of the best developers I know, and has solved some real world problems in crypto.
Imagine the future possibilities? Apple/android entire cryptonite blockchain on your mobile? Mobile staking? The innovation of this coin is simple amazing, join forces with btcd and my words cant even explain how perfect this will be.
August 30, 2014, 12:39:48 AM
Actually some of the most successful coins have changed their names. XMR, XC, DRK come to mind. Mini block coin (MBC or XMB) is the obvious, kitsch-free, technically pure, name.
Also "cryptonite" misleadingly implies association with the technology of cryptonote protocol coins, the hash algorithm of which is typically cryptonight.
Also "cryptonite" misleadingly implies association with the technology of cryptonote protocol coins, the hash algorithm of which is typically cryptonight.
Aminorex is correct, as usual. It's still early enough to change the name, and such a change is warranted. ((((BitFreak)))), please hear our case:
The market cap is piddling and the thread is barely 100 pages. Yes, we are asking BitFreak to accept pushback from the community and endure no small amount of PITA hassle, but aminorex and I are in agreement on the matter and we are not noobs who would request such a great favor lightly.
I don't hate 'cryptonite' but it's silly to resign ourselves to entirely avoidable confusion with, and resentment from, the cryptonOte/CryptoNight camps.
Why do my favorite two altcoins, xmr and xcn, have to use names that are non-interchangable homophones?
As much as I love to complain without suggesting solutions, this time is different. I have divined for us the perfect new name and taken the initiative to register it:
MINI-BLOCKCHAIN + BITCOIN = MINICOIN
There was a briefly a previous MiniCoin (just as there was briefly a previous ByteCoin), but it's gone and never coming back. These domains belong to us now:
MiniCo.in (general information)
MiniCoin.info (blockchain explorer)
MiniCoin.io (web wallet)
Changing the name of a very new coin with a tiny market cap and limited community mindshare is not convenient, but not a hard fork either.
IMO changing the XCN's name to MiniCoin or MiniChain at community behest would demonstrate great maturity and forbearance on BitFreak's part, which in turn would reflect very positively on his exceedingly innovative and brilliantly executed mini-blockchain project.
As a Hodor of >1 day worth of XCN mining I share a goodly sum of the non-trivial risk of re-branding, but am nevertheless confident ditching 'cryptonite' in favor of 'MiniCoin' (or 'MiniChain') is a smart move for the medium/long term, even at considerable cost in the short term.
BitFreak has a million things to do for XCN besides entertaining name changes, but perhaps he can be persuaded by conditional pledges of support contingent on a nomenclature rethink.
I am willing to escrow 25,000 XCN, to be released to the dev fund (IE catia) upon abandonment of the sub-optimal initial 'cryptonite' brand.
I know and do not discount the fact that BF & Co put a lot of time and effort into choosing 'cryptonite' but maintaining a label isn't the point of this experiment.
Luckily the press (not even CoinDesk) has yet to say much about CryptoNote, CryptoNite, CryptoNight, and CryptoKnight. Thus, we may still avoid an upcoming crypto-imbrogio which has the potential to reduce all but the sharpest aminorex/Satoshi/Linus types to quivering heaps of uncertainty.
Jump to: