That’s a good point, and you’re right, there’s an obvious conflict with Compound Ether (CETH).
I’m expecting to have a lot of discussions (& debates) with individuals about the merits of wrapped assets on the IC. It would be nice if the prefix could lead into a discussion about the security attributes of the asset. I thought Canister served this purpose well but I’m sure there are other good options.
If someone asks me why we called it Infinity (or Infinite) BTC what am I supposed to say? Open to suggestions.
I think we should call it icBTC…so I wouldn’t ever suggest discussing infinite Bitcoin with anyone. Bitcoiners will not be very appreciative of that wording.
In some programming languages when we need to name a derivative function we attach a suffix of ' which is pronounced “prime”
i.e. BTC' for “BTC Prime” or “Bitcoin Prime”
One of the most common modern notations for differentiation is named after Joseph Louis Lagrange, even though it was actually invented by Euler and just popularized by the former. In Lagrange’s notation, a prime mark denotes a derivative. If f is a function, then its derivative evaluated at x is written
I have a softly-held opinion on naming I want to pose by you all regarding naming conventions like “iBTC” or other types (fwiw, i voted for that on the Twitter poll Jordan held). I am very much prepared for folks to ignore this, as feedback is what I am looking for:
The more I read this thread, the more I think the more user helpful version of what we are doing is using a verb (though not “wrapped”) rather than a proper noun.
A proper noun like iBTC, iCBTC, *BTC, etc… connotes (from a distance) a new chain or new token asset.
A verb connotes that it is the same underlying token…. But some action was taken on it.
Some ideas:
“mantled” BTC
“augmented” BTC
“morphed” BTC - from “Neuromorphic engineering”, basically to morph BTC become smarter, faster.
If BTC direct integration only make BTC “smarter”, we need to “morph” it to make it “smarter & faster” to harvest full potential of ICP technology.
How do we abbreviate it while not trying to give impression it is a new asset ? The idea is using agnostic coding symbol as identifier. Such as bracket (BTC), or other coding symbol. But I do not know if using such symbols make it less compatible and cause problem.
Bit confused, do you mean adjective instead of verb?
If so, I think that is a good point. Personally I like “Smart BTC” or “SBTC” but most SXXX tickers are already taken by synthetix.
One suggestion would be “Agile BTC” or “ABTC”. Some definitions for agile are:
quick and well-coordinated in movement → as in BTC on IC is fast
active; lively → as in IC brings new life to BTC as a programmable asset
mentally acute or aware → as in BTC becomes smarter
I realize that it can bring connections to the AGILE development methodology, but I suppose that philosophy goes hand in hand with IC’s iterative and collaborative improvements through proposals.
This discussion on Twitter has gone well, and I think I’ve found my favorite name:
Chain Key Bitcoin (ckBTC)
Chain Key Ether (ckETH)
Chain Key Assets are secured by a chain key pair and canister smart contract.
The chain key pair simultaneously functions on the IC and the blockchain of the chain key asset, providing a seamless integration.
I think we need to avoid one letter prefixes (because it will be hard to ensure they are available to be used for the many assets coming to the IC), and choosing a prefix that somewhat describes the underlying technology without tying us to one specific blockchain seems ideal. The prefix should lead to fruitful discussions about how the technology works, why it’s different than other “wrapped” technologies.
How about CKBTC though (which is how it would look on listings)? I worry it’s too many letters… Very few tokens use 5 letters for their ticker symbol. And when they do, it usually spells out a real word like THETA.
From a non-technical point of view, we’re going pretty “internet computer” with the name ckBTC. What I mean by that is a lot of people preferred the name DFINITY (DFN) for the governance token initially. While the name Internet Computer expresses the technicals better, DFINITY just had more spark and was intuitive to the average consumer.
DFN: “It’s decentralized while also being infinitely scalable.”
iBTC seemed to be the most intuitive name from the ones discussed. I can imagine conversations going like below for each name:
“What is iBTC” >It’s bitcoin on internet computer
vs.
“What is ckBTC” >it’s chain key bitcoin
“What is chain key” > etc etc etc, really they still might not even know what you’re talking about
tl;dr I like iBTC, but I think proposals would be helpful too
Like Michael Lee mentioned, should just leave it as BTC. Will look and feel more familiar when trading on dexes. Adding c, i, k and all that other stuff in front of the name just seems weird.
