New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rename Specification to Omni Protocol Specification #308

Closed
msgilligan opened this Issue Jun 9, 2015 · 10 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@msgilligan
Copy link
Member

msgilligan commented Jun 9, 2015

Omni Protocol or Omni Layer?

@msgilligan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

msgilligan commented Jun 10, 2015

@CraigSellars @marv-engine @achamely @zathras-crypto @dexX7

Any thoughts on what he new name should be? If there's consensus, I'll create a pull request.

@dexX7

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

dexX7 commented Jun 10, 2015

What do you think sounds right? I almost tend to believe the most accurate wording would be "Omni Layer Protocol", but it's aweful.

Did you see the old description?


  • The term M.A.S.T.E.R. is an acronym for "Metadata Archival by Standard Transaction Embedding Records"
  • The term "Master Protocol" applies to the specification and the clients that implement its features.
  • The term "MSC Protocol" is used as the abbreviation for "Master Protocol".
  • The term "Mastercoins" applies to the digital tokens that access the features of the "Master Protocol" clients.
  • The term "MSC" is used as the abbreviation for "Mastercoins".

The “Master Protocol” layer between the existing Bitcoin Protocol and users’ currencies is [...]


@msgilligan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

msgilligan commented Jun 10, 2015

My preference is to call the Protocol, the 'Omni Protocol' and to call the Protocol + implementation + ecosystem the "Omni Layer".

So I would make the title: Omni Protocol Specification

And yes, the whole terminology section will need updating, too.

@dexX7

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

dexX7 commented Jun 10, 2015

Sounds fine in my opinion.

@zathras-crypto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

zathras-crypto commented Jun 10, 2015

Honestly I'm ambivalent here guys - marketing was never my strongpoint so whatever nomenclature you think suits best is fine by me :)

@marvgmail

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

marvgmail commented Jun 11, 2015

@msgilligan I agree with your definitions for Omni Protocol and Omni Layer.

@msgilligan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

msgilligan commented Jun 11, 2015

Sounds like we have enough consensus were I can start work on a pull request. We can discuss and refine the specifics on the pull request.

@achamely

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

achamely commented Jun 12, 2015

+1 @msgilligan , you've got my vote

@msgilligan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

msgilligan commented Jun 14, 2015

OK, PR #309 is now open and we can continue the discussion there.

Note: My suggestion is that we agree on title and terminology first, then someone (I volunteer) can go through the Spec and update everything to the new terminology.

@msgilligan msgilligan changed the title Rename Specification to Omni _______ Rename Specification to Omni Protocol Specification Jun 16, 2015

@msgilligan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

msgilligan commented Jun 29, 2015

Closing now that PR #309 is merged.

@msgilligan msgilligan closed this Jun 29, 2015

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment