I like the name bitcoins, but I see your point with using credits instead. But how do you intend to shorten credits?
"cds" Because that would not cause any confusion.
Topic: Imagine bitcoin is the currency of the future! would you rename? (Read 4074 times)
"cds" Because that would not cause any confusion.
I like the name bitcoins, but I see your point with using credits instead. But how do you intend to shorten credits?
Some day people will pay in nanosatoshi 
Is that even possible? I thought a satoshi was the smallest increment of BTC possible in the code, i.e. .000 000 01 BTC
It's my understanding that all it would take would be to update the client to handle more decimal places; there is no inherent property of Bitcoin that mandate we stop at the eighth decimal place..
I suppose you are right, but would everyone accept the change? It seems like if you make any fundamental changes to the client like that many people will be distrustful of them? Also, it seems unlikely that we'll ever need to do that. Eight decimal places should be enough divisibility for any sort of future I can imagine. But who can tell...
And 640KB will be more than anyone will ever need...
"In any science-fiction movie, anywhere in the galaxy, currency is referred to as 'credits.'"
How about Zeni
How about Zeni
how about a poll on trimming away the plural suffix from bitcoins
"Bitcoin" is a cool name, I wouldn't cahnge it anyway.
Also, I would call the currency "bitcoin". No need to change it, it's awesome the way it is.
Some day people will pay in nanosatoshi
Is that even possible? I thought a satoshi was the smallest increment of BTC possible in the code, i.e. .000 000 01 BTC
It's my understanding that all it would take would be to update the client to handle more decimal places; there is no inherent property of Bitcoin that mandate we stop at the eighth decimal place..
I suppose you are right, but would everyone accept the change? It seems like if you make any fundamental changes to the client like that many people will be distrustful of them? Also, it seems unlikely that we'll ever need to do that. Eight decimal places should be enough divisibility for any sort of future I can imagine. But who can tell...
I like 'bitgold'
..... anyone want to help me clone the client and start a new fork? ... I need at least two people who will connect with my client and seed the new p2p network. Basically we just simply take the source, search and replace 'bitcoin' with 'bitgold' and start generating gold ... we need to change few things like port number and etc so it plays nicely with bitcoin and we could also change a few rules like say issue the say total amount of bitgold as there is currently physical grams of gold in the world and keep it inflating at same approx. rate that gold is being mined up ~2.25% ... first adopters get to mine the most bitgold.
Some day people will pay in nanosatoshi
Is that even possible? I thought a satoshi was the smallest increment of BTC possible in the code, i.e. .000 000 01 BTC
It's my understanding that all it would take would be to update the client to handle more decimal places; there is no inherent property of Bitcoin that mandate we stop at the eighth decimal place..
I dislike the word "credit" because it implies a fiat value, if not pure debt. It can sound "cool" and futurey and stuff - unless you're a rabid anti-debt-financing economics nerd like I am, in which case it sounds poisonous.
I concur with dropping the "S" and slanging it to "coin". It's concise, descriptive, and has almost as much geek whimsy as referring to grams of gold as "GP".
I concur with dropping the "S" and slanging it to "coin". It's concise, descriptive, and has almost as much geek whimsy as referring to grams of gold as "GP".
Some day people will pay in nanosatoshi
Is that even possible? I thought a satoshi was the smallest increment of BTC possible in the code, i.e. .000 000 01 BTC
I like the idea of calling it "bits". Added bonus: It doesn't actually require a rename, just inevitable laziness.
Some day people will pay in nanosatoshi
What about when we need to go further than the 8'th case?
Well, if we name .00000001Ⓑ=1 satoshi, then that value would still retain its name even if additional decimal points were added later (which I doubt will be necessary). Whatever happens, that value has historical significance as the smallest possible unit in satoshi's initial implementation.
What about when we need to go further than the 8'th case?
1Ⓑ=1 diamond
.01Ⓑ=1 emerald
.0001Ⓑ=1 ruby
.000001Ⓑ=1 sapphire
.00000001Ⓑ=1 opal
That way, bitcoinage can be measured in terms of carrots.
Seriously, though, drop the "s". IMO, that gives it a much more Firefly-like sound to it.
Also, I'm in favor of naming the smallest possible unit a satoshi in homage to the bitcoin creator.
I kinda like the idea of dropping the S in plural, makes it sound more japanese, "I'm being stalked by a group of ninja!", "Gotta catcha all the pokemon!" "I got 100 bitcoin!" (i wish)
Poll options:
The global currency system that evolves from Bitcoin should be called...
Bitcoin
Credits
Coins
Personally, I think we should define 1 credit = 1 satoshi, so 1 bitcoin = 100 megacreds.
The global currency system that evolves from Bitcoin should be called...
Bitcoin
Credits
Coins
Personally, I think we should define 1 credit = 1 satoshi, so 1 bitcoin = 100 megacreds.
Let just rename bitcoin to satoshi.
That would be like calling bitcoin "Rodriguez" or something, it's probably a reasonably common second name in Japan. I like the idea of dropping the "s" by the way.
Jump to: