Between "decentralized open applications platform" and "cryptocurrency" I'd choose the latter. It also sounds much cooler.
(Not really a Development & Technical topic...)
Topic: Is "cryptocurrency" a good term? - page 5. (Read 1479 times)
Names don't need to be descriptive. As long as they're unique enough and easy to remember they do the job.
Between "decentralized open applications platform" and "cryptocurrency" I'd choose the latter. It also sounds much cooler.
(Not really a Development & Technical topic...)
Between "decentralized open applications platform" and "cryptocurrency" I'd choose the latter. It also sounds much cooler.
(Not really a Development & Technical topic...)
Pretty sure you're a decade late if you were hoping to change the terminology 
yes sir, this is the main fact! The term is what it is, and it is part of the history of Bitcoin, and maybee the history of world economy forever.
Recently I've started thinking that the word "cryptocurrency" does a pretty poor job at describing what it's all about. The "crypto" part does not describe the main properties - decentralization and openness, cryptography is simply a tool for achieving them, and doesn't necessarily bring those properties. "Currency" is a pretty narrow economic term, which refers to money in active circulation, but in our case we have digital units that can have many use cases and most notably they allow building applications on top of them. The "currency" part is also used by opponents to claim that they are in fact inherently worthless by pointing out their high volatility and lack of scalability - two factors that indeed make them almost unusable for daily transactions for average user at the moment.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
There are a lot of poorly defined terms in the history of mankind. Complaining about the term cryptocurrency is not the problem, the problem is how we decided to define it in the first place.
How about using the term concensus currency? BTW, I really don't care the term, as long as more and more people recognize it, then it's a symbol. Don't need to be a meaningful word.
BTW, I really don't care the term, as long as more and more people recognize it, then it's a symbol. Don't need to be a meaningful word.
Pretty sure you're a decade late if you were hoping to change the terminology
I don't think you will be able to change it, it has now entered into the language of the internet. It's like "blockchain", blockchain is now a specific subset of the original concept of chained blocks, and it contains many extra features.
Well, we have things like Ethereum that call themselves decentralized platforms, but they are mentioned as cryptocurrencies on markets and in news, we have Initial Coin Offering, but they sell tokens. In Satoshi's whitepaper Bitcoin was described as "a peer to peer electronic cash system", the term cryptocurrency was introduced later, so I'd say quite possible that in the future Bitcoin will refereed as something that would better describe its propeties, especially if by that time we will have lots of different apps built on top of it that will make it much more than a currency or store of value.
As for blockchain, that adds even more confusion since people very rarely specify what kind of implementation do they mean - public and decentralized or private and centralized, so this also has to be addressed.
I understand your concerns. But, on the contrary, i think it does do it justice for instance 'crypto' refers to the use of cryptography and without an intermediary and as such without an intermediary there is some cause to justify that it is decentralized. The term 'cryptocurrency' was conceived long before Bitcoin too.
I don't think you will be able to change it, it has now entered into the language of the internet. It's like "blockchain", blockchain is now a specific subset of the original concept of chained blocks, and it contains many extra features.
Recently I've started thinking that the word "cryptocurrency" does a pretty poor job at describing what it's all about. The "crypto" part does not describe the main properties - decentralization and openness, cryptography is simply a tool for achieving them, and doesn't necessarily bring those properties. "Currency" is a pretty narrow economic term, which refers to money in active circulation, but in our case we have digital units that can have many use cases and most notably they allow building applications on top of them. The "currency" part is also used by opponents to claim that they are in fact inherently worthless by pointing out their high volatility and lack of scalability - two factors that indeed make them almost unusable for daily transactions for average user at the moment.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Jump to: