for ubit
btw ubit.org is already taken

underwun, I think the name decision should be based on what is your target audience, if it's for instance financial institutions - Identabit would make a sense because the may care about "identity" and have a value proposition in the name can be a good thing, but if you are going to promote it to more mass market Identabit name wouldn't contain any value proposition for them and having more simple name like ubit or idex can have more benefits. If you are going to target Bitcoin users and crypto enthusiasts, having identity in it's name can even do some harm.
Also more general name you use, the easier it would be to pivot and target different markets.
Take a look at Dash - they were able to double their market cap with rebranding.
More good names examples (in my opinion): Ripple, Stellar, Ethereum, Graphene (btw I suggested to call new version Graphene and I think the name works great so far, I was even advocating to rebrand Bitshares into Graphene completely).

"graphene" is a winner, imo.

Is ubit.org already taken? I thought it was still available for purchase (at BuyDomains.com).

The branding brief mentions "an easy to remember retail name".
I think I have a brilliant name proposition. Actually a couple of them:

YOUNIQUE or  UNIQ

YOUBIT or  UBIT

I especially like UBIT. As a currency unit it is just perfect.

It sounds natural: "You owe me 12 ubits."
And it plays out nicely: it is your virtual currency and your identity.

What's more, ubit.org and youbit.com are still available.

As for the other service I'd go for REMIT. Then you'd have a nicely matching pair: UBIT & REMIT.

ubit.

Brilliant suggestion, jakub. Absolutely brilliant.

"ubit", imo, is a perfect name for a consumer-oriented currency intended to challenge Bitcoin head-on.

"ubit" is short, simple, memorable, and replete with meaning. It seems to have almost unlimited potential. It even subliminally evokes "uber." If John can fit this name into his plans for the naming system and future business strategy, that would be a huge coup. Maybe the currency name is not as precious as the overall business strategy, but here's one instance where the name could dramatically boost the rate of uptake by consumers, young and old.

I'm surprised that ubit.org and ubit.net are still available.

This is an ambitious and extremely thoughtful proposal you've forwarded here. You make a compelling case for bringing to market--and none too soon--a currency that will help fill a void, delivering on the promises that we know Bitcoin cannot.

About the name "IDentabit": yes, it's drawn attention here on this thread, but frankly I'm quite skeptical that means the name is clearly a win. It's not the capital "D" that is most concerning. Actually, "Identabit" would be memorable to consumers, as would be "Remitabit", provided that critical mass had already been achieved. These would be perfectly fine names for a company, a protocol, a platform... or a blockchain. But they would definitely be less useful as names of currency units. Perhaps most importantly, these names are unwieldy. Being four syllables, "Identabit" is a risky choice for currency units because it won't make it easy for people to speak of, think of, spell, and read about without stumbling over them or, worse yet, scoffing at them. All of this could impede the rapid uptake of the currency by consumers. Maybe when crypto has become mainstream, then clunky, long currency names will be more typical and more effective. But I don't think we are there yet, not nearly so.

Have you considered keeping "Identabit" and "Remitabit" as the names of the respective blockchains but using shorter and simpler names for the actual currency units? Using different names for tradeable units and their underlying blockchain seems to be quite a common practice nowadays: e.g., Ripple and XRP, Ethereum and Ether, MUSE and notes, etc.

You could call the blockchain "Identabit" but the currency units "IDbits" (which would jive well with "IDbank" and "IDpay"). Likewise, you could call the Remitabit blockchain's currency units "Rembits". The logo for IDbits (which evokes Bitcoin's logo) could stay the same. Which of the following sounds better: "I'd like to send you XX.XX Remitabits" versus "I'd like to send you XX.XX Rembits". Or "That'll be XX.XX Identabits, please" versus "That'll be XX.XX IDbits, please". To me, it seems obvious that the short & sweet names are more likely to catch on.

Another thought is that you could promote the usage of abbreviations for Identabits as much as possible, so that users would come to refer to them as IDB. Remitabits could be RMB (or some variation thereof to avoid confusion with the symbol for Chinese currency).

Let the people bet whatever amount they want on songs they like and let them get paid every month when/if they reach the top 100 best songs on the platform (charts)...
Or much better copy the BINARY OPTION system from the forex markets...
Let the people bet on songs making a CALL (if they like it)  or PUT (if they don't) using the music tokens !!!
Let them have a potential profit from 70% to 85% and let the platform keep the rest!


PLEASE SEE HOW BINARY OPTIONS WORK and implement the idea here !!!!

Intriguing idea, but would it be legal? For speculators based in the United States, probably not...

Quote from: btswolf on July 17, 2015, 05:49:02 pm

Quote from: cob on July 17, 2015, 05:16:16 pm

Any suggestions from this incredibly smart community is welcome of course.

Actually I'm not from the smarter part of this community but if you would ask me...
I'd like to see MUSE launched as a separate Wallet/Website on the Graphene based BitShares Blockchain.
"Combine the extremes, and you will have the true center."

That's a fair suggestion.

I mean why wouldn't PeerTracks want to leverage the industrial grade graphene blockchain without having to pay for it? From what I understand, MUSE blockchain will be licensed by CNX for a price if it has its independant blockchain, and free to use if it integrates directly on the Bitshares blockchain.

You create your own wallet/trading interface for whatever artist coin that will be created and use the Bitshares blockchain as the backend and voilà! PeerTracks won't even have to maintain a blockchain, and nobody will have to short bitUSD on another blockchain. That kinds of frightens me to know that there will be two types of bitUSD backed by different assets on different blockchains. Why not have it all on a single blockchain, increasing liquidity and utility? Notes would be an asset on Bitshares (as it currently already is) and have the artist tokens as UIA.

Am I missing something, cause from my perspective it doesn't make much sense with BTS2.0 to have an independant blockchain for MUSE.

I see at least two big problems with having music as a UIA on the main Bitshares blockchain.

1. Greater risk. Putting everything on a single chain would unnecessarily concentrate risk. If (heaven forbid) something disastrous happens to BTS like being crippled by onerous regulations, malicious actors, bad publicity, security breaches, etc., that could jeopardize the music chain as well. By having a separate chain, this type of risk is spread out to some extent.

2. Loss of control. Ultimately, a UIA on the Bitshares blockchain is subject to the control of BTS holders because they control/vote over the parent chain. What if a major disagreement arises in the future between bts and note about who gets BitUSD transaction fees? Also, what if, in the future, the music chain needs to be modified at a fundamental level to adapt it to changes in consumer tastes, technology, or regulation?  It's hard to predict where the music entertainment industry might be going in the future and what changes in muse might need to occur. Note holders are better off having control of their own independent chain so that the system is flexible enough to respond to future (unforeseen) contingencies. UIAs may be good for relatively simple tokens, but something as important, complex, and multi-functional like MUSE would be best as its own independent chain.

Quote from: Goodtiming on June 20, 2015, 06:01:54 pm

Muse is a terrible name anyway, trade mark arguments aside. It suggests something whimsical rather than something of value like a bank note.
Notes is an excellent name as it suggests value and music. To coin a phrase musically you use notes.

"Muse" is the new name for "BitShares Music". There's no planned change to "Notes" afaik.

I think "Muse" is a great name for the blockchain. I'm not an attorney, but calling the blockchain "Muse" is clearly different from using the name for a band, show, or performance. Most mainstream users wouldn't be interacting directly with the blockchain.

I encountered a similar problem. What seemed to work was installing on a second (older) machine, syncing, and then copying the entire bitshares folder from the older machine over to the first one.

Interesting...

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113873/bitcoin-foundation-is-effectively-bankrupt