Topic: [neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin? - page 62. (Read 95281 times)

I have of course been thinking a lot about how the competing technologies for block chain scaling compare to mine (linked bulleted items below are to the prior research I did):

• Lightning Networks (LN)
• Iota (DAG) tangles (IoT)
• eMunie (vaporware not even a white paper)
• Bitshares 2.0 (BTS)
• Dash Evolution

Lightning Networks

I have a unique insight on the apparent fact that LN is unique in that it is the only one wherein not all participating "full"[1] nodes have to see all the microtransactions processed by all the nodes, thus it scales exponentially and qualitatively better in the sense that not every "full" node on the network has to have the same (least common denominator) baseline of network connectivity and CPU processing power (although BTS claims 100,000 TX/s single-threaded throughput for block chain updates on commodity CPUs so perhaps CPU isn't a practically limiting factor in any case).

LN is not compatible with existing block chains (including my opinion it will wreck havoc on Bitcoin) because it will requires extreme levels of block chain scaling because it will drive a proliferation of payment channel opening and closing transactions and even competing payment channel networks, each requiring a distinct TX on the block chain. Thus while LN scales the microtransaction volume well, it paradoxically requires a block chain that can scale well also. Thus I have come to the conclusion that LN is only really compatible with my PoW block chain redesign. Although my block chain design can scale transactions very high, it will also have this aforementioned (least common denominator) baseline which will probably limit the network to about 100,100 TX/s on commodity servers for "full" nodes.

LN also has the downsides that it isn't end-to-end principled and can't be always available to between every payer and payee, which is where when combined with my block chain design, then mine fills the gaps to provide the end-to-end capability and the complete availability. It can't provide anonymity (well at least not the ring sigs and value hiding that we can get on the block chain). And realistically LN will require trusted commercial servers to make it function well (not trusted with any funds, but trusted to not DoS and to optimize payment flows with complex algorithms and global knowledge, reduce latency, etc). Thus LN will be a spy network for government and corporations. But sometimes users don't care and they may need this extra scaling (and probably even lower TX fees) for the tiniest and highest volume of microtransactions.

Each of my design and LN separately (and especially together as I am proposing above) can continue to function reasonably well in the event of a partitioned internet and network downtime without allowing double-spends to wreck chaos on the partitioned forks, whereas the existing (PoW and PoS) block chains end up in chaos with double-spends on each partitioned fork.

Iota (DAG) tangles

My analysis thus far (subject to change if I learn something new about this) is that the only significant  advantage offered by this interesting new technology is that the issues with large block sizes for block chain scaling are avoided, which my block chain scaling design fixes without incurring some of Iota (DAG tangles) faults. The "full" nodes still need to see all the transactions on the network. I don't really see how it can handle network partitioning since there is nothing to prevent double-spends on multiple partitions. And the confirmation times are not yet characterized in a way we can quantify in comparison, so I can't say how fast it can confirm transactions. I expect my design to be less than 1 second.

Bitshares 2.0

Digging through the hype, the actual performance is only less than 100 TX/s on today's commodity hardware and networks.

Dash Evolution

Main issue is it doesn't address the large block chain blocks aspect of the block chain scaling issue facing for example Bitcoin. And the claimed immunity to 51% attacks is really just the factual obfuscation that masternodes are making too much money (officially endorsed form of cheating) to cheat the design flaws. The lead developer of Dash replied.


[1] "Full" node means different things in these different designs, but I have equated them in the sense of the node that must have global knowledge about either all the transactions or in LN's case all the payment channels.

Someone voted "see my suggestion in the thread". Which suggested name?

I have added a new choice to the poll:

cliklet

I was thinking about a wavelet and then thinking more in the frame of mind of a typical social network user and what they would associate with a micropayment, is "clicking", "likes", and "swiping". For once we can associate crypto-currency with some metaphor that means something to your average person.

let
verb
: not prevent or forbid; allow.

I see clickoin already exists, but coin doesn't seem to be the correct metaphor for a micropayment. To the user, they are not exchanging coins when using micropayments, but rather enabling features! Think deeply about the way micropayments will really be used, i.e. click here with your micropayments already enabled in the browser cookie and get automatic access.

I am preferring something that means something to people who are not technophiles, because I want microtransactions to used by average people on social networks. What is an ion?

Netoken even makes more sense to more people I think. What is a bit coin? I bite the coin?

We geeks like ion because we want something technically cool but don't we want to market this to the billions of people in the world? Come on guys think marketing.

I still sort of like 'ion' because maybe normal people will just get used to saying it. And it is short and one syllable. And it is associated with electric charge.

The other issue is to try to select a name that is unique enough it won't just sound like many other copycats. For example, netoken may have that quality. What other way is there to say something similar to a "token on a network"? Tokenet is not the token rather the network itself, so doesn't work.

Ditto clicklet or cliklet. Perhaps clickgrant or clickpass but the latter was used already for some implementation around OpenID (but now defunct) and it doesn't sound great pluralized, clickpasses. Clickgrants is too long and it seems to imply a revocable grant and let implies not impeded, which in my mind is a subtle but significant psychological nuance.

The problem with all the names that end in 'bit' is there are so many possible copycats, such as "cloudbit". Hyperbit stands out for me though because Hyper means fast to me, and it is also associated with the internet in HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol) and hyperlinks. So it is like saying a linked bit of information (hyper means over and beyond just a bit) that can move at hyper speed. So it seems to really fit well with the planned feature set of this project. Yet I don't know if all people will get that meaning out of it?

OTOH, token is not as general as 'bit' of information, since I am targeting more than just a ledger of value transfer eventually.

Netbit I like because it is clear and short.

So we will have ions, iotas, and aeons. Can you imagine how confused users on the internet will be? Send me some "ions". Umm, did you mean "aeons"? No, I meant "iotas" sorry for misstating. Oh what are "iotas", not familiar with that one. Wholly mother of clusterfuck, this is so supposed to improve matters  I guess you can make the argument to hope that one of those will either become more widely adopted than the others.

I think my preferences at the moment with the most preferred first are:

cliklet / clicklet
netoken
ion
hyperbit
netbit

I am still trying to think of the greatest name since sliced bread, but apparently so far not succeeding. Those above don't appear to be horrible to me, but I am respecting community feedback.

Some ideas that have run through my mind while brainstorming:

weblet / netlet
datium
ionugget
netgold

* cybit has trademark issues.

---

The chosen name is intended to be for both the name of the coin network and the coin units, e.g. "pay me 5 ____s".

The general feature set targeted is instant transactions, even microtransactions, solving the block chain scaling issue entirely, and a fundamental breakthrough for the general solution to the programmable block chain, so working towards digital assets, smart contracts, etc, as well as the ability to plugin the strongest and most efficient on-chain anonymity which I have also been working on. The feature set will be firmed up as development proceeds. I just mention these goals in order to drive a name choice which is general enough for both the token of the network and also the general block chain 2.0 type functionality. I am not sure if I will get all the way to block chain 2.0 in version 1 of the release of this effort. Choosing a name which can also apply to a version 2 is forward looking.

Note my anonymity work may appear in another coin(s) before it appears in my effort, but this has not yet been finalized. I am trying to work with others so as to hedge my bets in terms of where success will be maximized. I am trying to follow the path of least resistance and lowest hanging fruit, while also attempting to push the envelope of the technologies with my own style of creativity. So a mix of my individualism with collective effort.

There is an ongoing discussion about how I might go about releasing a coin and working with the open source concept and the legal ramifications.

When choosing a name, also ask yourself how would this roll off the tongue when someone is saying it (in their mind or actual vocalization) over the internet to get some coin units from a friend to go play some social networking game or the ilk. What is going to be catchy over time for that purpose? "Zap me over some ____s, I want to join you on game XYZ". Of course the name has to have applicability in more serious contracts and trades as well.

Prior discussion:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12769598

Some definitions:

• bit
  /bit/
  noun
  :  a unit of computer information equivalent to the result of a choice between two alternatives (as yes or no, on or off)
• cy·ber
  ˈsībər/
  adjective
  : of, relating to, or characteristic of the culture of computers, information technology, and virtual reality.
• hyper-
  prefix
  : over; beyond; above, exceeding.
  : relating to hypertext, hyperlink.
• to·ken
  ˈtōkən/
  noun
  : a thing serving as a visible or tangible representation of a fact, quality, feeling, etc.
  : a voucher that can be exchanged for goods or services, typically one given as a gift or offered as part of a promotional offer.
  : an individual occurrence of a symbol or string, in particular.
  
  • an individual occurrence of a linguistic unit in speech or writing, as contrasted with the type or class of linguistic unit of which it is an instance.
  • the smallest meaningful unit of information in a sequence of data for a compiler.
  : a sequence of bits passed continuously between nodes in a fixed order and enabling a node to transmit information.
• i·on
  ˈīən,ˈīˌän/
  : an atom or molecule with a net electric charge due to the loss or gain of one or more electrons.
• -tron
  suffix
  : denoting a subatomic particle.
  : denoting a particle accelerator.

For netron, I think of neutron, but applicable to a network.


P.S. I dropped my intention from 2014 to not release an effort under my own reputation. I did this because of a) financial realities of my life demanding I move forward PDQ, b) the realization it is probably not illegal for a US citizen to release a product with unregistered tokens if the law is followed carefully (per the linked ongoing discussion above), c) the decision to make the anonymity implementation modular and orthogonal to the block chain protocol,  and d) because I think I've learned how to navigate the political landmines by now (much revolves around demonstrating a sincere intent to strive over time for a leaderless, decentralized, open source result so that people don't feel I am trying to put my ego/control all over crypto-land, i.e. ideology is very important in our technophile market at least until we scale out to millions of n00b users with microtransactions on social networking). Haters and competitors yield when the market has beat them into submission. I don't worry about their negativity. It is more motivation for me. Bring on the negative votes please!