Do people in the BBR community generally agree that there are people who dismiss BBR simply because of the name?
If so, it would seem to be in your economic interest to change it to something that's less polarizing(whether it's Aureum or not, isn't important).
People who vote for Boolberry, do you feel that Boolberry in general is a superior name for a currency? If you think that cryptos are supposed be used by tech people only, then yeah it just might be. It's a good name for that market. On the other hand, if you think the end game of crypto currencies is a bunch of enthusiasts using them for fun, then we're already here and we've probably peaked.
I like the name Boolberry too, that's a fine choice. I'm not sure it's the name that's going to maximize demand for the currency though in the short term or the long term though. But it's not something we're ever going to know the answer to, as there can only be one name.
It would be nice if the market made objective evaluations of currencies based on their technology or what how they plan to increase adoption, but as we can see the market obviously hasn't chosen BBR yet despite it being currently objectively superior to other anonymous currencies.
the problem is that there are only two options. someone in the bbr thread proposed several rounds of voting with a big name pool, which would be a way better process.
aureum just has a sound to it that i personally don't see as something i would want to pay with. i'd rather pay with boolberries. someone else mentioned the success of ethereums ipo, as proof that a latin sounding name is good. my first thought when i heard about ethereum was that the name sucks. might just be me, but i don't think so.
when i think about branding a cryptocurrency i'm thinking more in the lines of a payment solution, because i think if there is to be a general adoption thats what most people will perceive it as. while boolberry is not the best option in that sense, it could be a lot worse.
there are likely people who will not invest because boolberry doesn't sound serious. some of those voices could just be monero shills tho. they will have to be convinced or a better name finding process has to be introduced.
Yeah, I can definitely understand not liking Aureum. To me it's a pretty neutral name that also has some meaning behind it. It's certainly not a flashy name or anything I don't think, fairly simple.
There haven't been too many suggestions though really. I was hoping to hear more after the post I made yesterday. Maybe naming a currency is really hard and most of the good names are taken. I feel that the BBR community wants to end this chapter of re-branding as soon as possible, as there seems to be a lot of resistance to it.
There's lots of different attributes that you can attempt to convey in naming a cryptocurrency. A payment solution is one. With BBR anonymity and privacy are also one, security is one as well.
One problem with cryptos is that they aren't really succeeding yet as payment solutions. Perhaps overtime they will be developed in to something that can compete with personal credit cards, but we're still likely a few years off from that.
With Monero and BBR I think the value proposition is mainly in the security and privacy of their respective technologies.
Aureum is definately a bad choice. This is Crypto, a good coins name must be "techie" not a lesson in currency history.
Yes, it's true. Aureum is even worse than Rune.
And it already exists: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=793502.0;topicseen
Ah, what do you know. Aurumcoin random SHA256 coin created a few days ago.