Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     8 years ago (edited) 

    Hey Kyle… Not sure what you mean by “capitalizing people”… but I’m kind of puzzled that what you get from this article is that it contains a proposal to do something unethical with the bitcoin name and logo, or that the author is peddling a clone coin.

    It’s pretty clear that the creator of bitcoin designed it – intentionally and consciously – for the reuse that’s happening everywhere. And people are not just basing countless currencies and projects on the bitcoin protocol and blockchain, they’re even proposing that entire companies’ and countries’ financial systems be based at least on what bitcoin pioneered, if not on the bitcoin protocol itself. Also seems like even the word “bitcoin” was intended to be a generic name, that is, not a proper noun – like “money” or “coin” or “steel.” (Nobody objects when somebody combines a bunch of different metals and calls the alloy that results “stainless steel.”) IMHO, whoever it was who created bitcoin just wanted to do something good (profoundly good) for the world.

    So for those and various other reasons, what I get from this article isn’t a proposal to do something with bitcoin that bitcoin wasn’t intended for or that its creator/s would object to. I get an incredibly helpful analysis of some issues I never would have thought about, with a suggestion for solving a problem that makes a lot of sense now that I’m starting to understand that:

    1. bitcoin doesn’t entirely address the question of how to provide legitimate businesses and honest individuals with privacy (which is something for which there is and always will be global demand, not to mention something we have an absolute right to);
    2. but bitcoin – as the generic, basic, unenhanced, fundamental digital currency that we can now see it has become – does fill the enormously useful role of being a basic digital commodity that parallels the usefulness of gold coins (unenhanced gold);
    3. alt coins that have been created so far, with their useful enhancements of bitcoin, don’t work very well as plain, basic digital commodities (i.e. the “digital gold” that bitcoin so effectively functions as);
    4. the upcoming zen coin, with its many enhancements, will free zclassic up to remain unenhanced;
    5. a bitcoin that both fills the worldwide privacy demand and is plain enough to also function as a digital commodity is needed;
    6. in the opinion of this very well-informed and thoughtful author, zclassic is a great way to address that need:
      a) it already exists;
      b) it’s designed to fill the global demand for privacy;
      c) it has no founders' tax;
      d) it’s so-far unenhanced (much like bitcoin is) and the emergence of zen coin can allow it to stay that way; and
      e) as long as the supply-audit problem is fixed, which it apparently can be (and therefore likely will be), then it’s appropriate (immensely appropriate?) for filling the role of a digital commodity that has the privacy features bitcoin wasn’t designed to provide;
    7. however, although it’s based on bitcoin, the name zclassic associates it with zcash, when it would be more appropriately associated with bitcoin, since bitcoin is its codebase;
    8. meanwhile the letter Z has been adopted as the quick symbol for privacy in crypto communications; and so
    9. the name “bitcoin-Z” is much more accurate and practical than the name “zclassic” for communicating what the currency that’s currently called zclassic is all about.

    Thanks to the OP for starting this conversation. What do we need to do to get the name officially changed? Anybody know? Suggestions?

    [-]
     8 years ago  

    ... lol well they chose hush anyway so.

    I see your argument that anything should be able to use the bitcoin name in the spirit of Satoshi. I would argue it is still quite deceptive to the industry to rename your coin in a way that is confusing with the established leader of the space: Bitcoin. Just because it is an improvement on BTC doesn't mean you just copy the name. There is a reason there is not any other bitcoin clone names being used.

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       7 years ago  

      Thanks. Understood. BTW, article mentions Bitcoin Dark, Bitcoin Plus, Bitcoin 21, First Bitcoin.

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         7 years ago  

        Yeah all of those are shit, deceptive junk coins.

        $0.00
          Reply
          [-]
           8 years ago  

          I can understand this point of view. It can be seen as an opportunistic strategy and may not be viewed favorably by some people. It's not my coin, although I do have an investment in it, just like Bitcoin and others. Also this is a proposal and the ZCL community has to support it. Theoretically anyone can call a coin different names and whatever catches on will probably end up being used. I think BitcoinZ really reflects the essence of the coin better since the technology is mainly a version of bitcoin with a distinct improvement in privacy using zk-SNARKs tech. 1) The 'Z' distinguishes it enough from Bitcoin. 2) The other Bitcoin brands that have been around and mentioned in the post havn't really diminished what Bitcoin is. 3) It's a good marketing strategy for an open-source /non-IP world. Culturally if people are offended, they'll either dismiss it or actively work against it so I think the free market will generally settle things. As long as you aren't trying to pretend to be the core Bitcoin and confuse people I think culturally it's fine. People even have different visions of what Bitcoin is... (Bitcoin Unlimited vs Core)... so ownership only goes as far as those individuals who are using the ecosystem.