I've collected everything I'm trying to say in one post to make replying easier.
Thanks for the answers and patience from Stan and others. I'm arguing with you guys because I think this is a *really* important issue and that you haven't realized how much confusion it could cause.
Please tell me what the new names are for ALL of these concepts. They should have clear names and should be overloaded only if the terms can only appear in different contexts.
If you find this challenging, don't go ahead with this re-branding until we figure everything out.
Names:
1) What was formerly known as BitShares, the awesome innovation that is the distributed-prediction-market-based polymorphic digital asset exchange
2) The core asset in the original BitShares chain, formerly BTS
3) The whole system of prediction-market-based exchanges
4) An arbitrary new instance of (1), which is a part of (3)
5) An arbitrary new core asset, the core asset of a (4)
6) An invictus-endorsed crypto-equity (the NEW BitShares)
(my answers after my moment of clarity are: 1) BEX for the concept as a whole, BEXCurrency for the root chain 2) BEX 3) BEX 4) BEX***, BEXchain 5) BEX***Share 6) BitShares )
(second point of confusion: do non-primary chains have *separate* base units, like BEXStockShares? or do BEX aka BitShares1.0 units get transferred into the new chain?)
And, on top of that naming challenge, a question: Could there possibly be a DAC you release whose equity you do NOT call a BitShare? If so, give an example; if not, acknowledge that "BitShares" is essentially the new name for "I3 DAC".
Put another way: bitshares are a sub-thing of i3 DACs. What kinds of DACs might you make that aren't a sub-thing of bitshares?
This is important too
Keyhotee is not a DAC
I understand. I'm asking, is there anything that would be a DAC, but would not be a BitShare, under the new scheme.
It is already getting a lot of attention and it has a nice parallelism with Bitcoin, which in the public mind has become virtually synonymous with the crypto-currency ecosystem, including all its altcoins. We hope that BitShares will serve a similar function for the crypto-equity domain.
This is for one very simple reason: bit-shares is the perfect parallel to bit-coin for communicating the duality (and differences) and between crypto-equities and crypto-currencies. No other name would do for that purpose.
But "bitcoin" doesn't mean "cryptocurrency"! Nobody says "litecoin and peercoin are two examples of bitcoins".
You are making the analogy to bitcoin LESS applicable. bitcoin:currency::bitshares:equity worked better for the OLD definition. You can't own a bitshare anymore, for example.
Thank you for all your deep thinking!
Let's start with the last point first: If you think of just
bitcoin vs
Bitcoin you are very right.
If you consider that there is a third unused capitalization, BITCOIN, then maybe you can see our motivation.
bitcoin is a unit of a specific currency.
Bitcoin is a standard which has been used to implement multiple alt-currencies
from many developers.
BITCOIN is the not-too-informed general public's name for any
crypto-currency. (Kleenex = tissues)
BITSHARES would be what we hope first dawn's in the public's mind as a
crypto-equity.
BitShares is a standard which could used to implement multiple alt-equities
from many developers.
bitshares could be the unit of a specific equity, but which one? There will be many such exchanges.
BITCOIN and BITSHARES won't be used explicitly, but Bitcoin and BitShares have that unspoken flagship function which is distinct from representing their own standards for deriving specific instances of
coins and
shares. What other name than
BitShares could serve this role better?
And "shares" isn't confined to just "things that trade shares". Every unmanned company we can envision will have shares, whatever their business models.
But, just as there are alt-coins that aren't built to Bitcoin standards, there will surely be alt-shares that aren't built to BitShares standards. The main distinguishing feature is the BitShares Social Consensus License.
So there is still room for much discussion on most of your naming conventions. For example, if you have to name the currencies of each exchange anyway, why should the shares of BitShares BEX get to be just "bitshares"? Because they were the first?
It would be more uniform to have BEXshares, CEXshares, LKSshares, etc. and let bitshares be the generic name for them all.
BitShares BEX would have BEXshares,
BitShares LKS would have LKSshares, and so on.
So far, we have only introduced a top-down branding strategy for
how public attention will be drawn to the equities of PTS and AGS holders.
(and how they can be associated so that they reinforce each other).
That's the main purpose of having a brand.
The remaining questions you ask are still valid topics for robust discussion in this forum. Thanks for posing them.