Rebrand to Bitcoin Core #3408

1. 
   laanwj commented at 6:49 am on December 13, 2013: member

   Only messages and documentation changes for now, executable names and other file names can be changed later if necessary and safe.

   Do not do an all-sweeping change. Some occurences of Bitcoin-Qt need to be kept:

   • Applicationname: this is used to determine the registry entry names, we don’t want to lose settings over a silly name change.
   • Where it refers to the executable name instead of the product name.

   A translations update needs to follow this.

2. Rebrand to `Bitcoin Core`

   Only messages for now, executable names and other file names
   can be changed later if necessary and safe.
   
   Do not do an all-sweeping change. Some occurences of Bitcoin-Qt need to
   be kept:
   
   - Applicationname: this is used to determine the registry entry names,
     we don't want to lose settings over a silly name change.
   - Where it refers to the executable name instead of the product name.

   22f0135df0
3. 
   BitcoinPullTester commented at 7:23 am on December 13, 2013: none

   Automatic sanity-testing: PASSED, see http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/22f0135df0f6ee94c137d6c59209bdfbd93533fc for binaries and test log. This test script verifies pulls every time they are updated. It, however, dies sometimes and fails to test properly. If you are waiting on a test, please check timestamps to verify that the test.log is moving at http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/current/ Contact BlueMatt on freenode if something looks broken.
4. 
   jgarzik commented at 3:25 pm on December 13, 2013: contributor

   ACK
5. 
   petertodd commented at 11:54 am on December 14, 2013: contributor

   NACK

   The term “core” should be used with respect to the consensus-critical part, not all the extra wallet code, relay code, and so on that the reference implementation adds. We need a shorter term than “reference implementation” however.

6. 
   laanwj commented at 12:02 pm on December 14, 2013: member

   @petertodd this discussion has been done a long time ago, please only ACK/NACK based on the code and not the naming.
7. 
   petertodd commented at 12:06 pm on December 14, 2013: contributor

   @laanwj Oh it has? I’ve been out of the country. Disregard my comment then.
8. 
   laanwj commented at 12:21 pm on December 14, 2013: member

   See for example #3203 but it goes much further back, I can’t find the original issue right now.

   The point is that we don’t want the client to be called “Bitcoin” anymore to remove confusion between the software and the network. There were several suggestions for names but at a certain point it was settled at “Bitcoin Core” (just too much shed painting I hope you understand my revulsion to repeating that…).

   Sure, this “marketing” name can be confused with other things that might be cores of bitcoin, hey at least we didn’t call it “Coinbase” or “Blockchain”… There is just no name that everyone can agree on.

   So please: let me know if I missed something, but not if you don’t like the name.

9. 
   petertodd commented at 12:35 pm on December 14, 2013: contributor

   Well mainly I was thinking in terms of how at the Dark Wallet hackathon I convinced Amir and others that creating a stand-alone “consensus core” library was a good idea - naturally calling it libbitcoinconsensuscore or something equally unwieldy makes sense. But such a library isn’t really user-facing anyway so if they both end up with “core” in the name it’ll only confuse devs - I think we can live with that.

   Not worth bike-shedding over…

10. laanwj referenced this in commit 2ed38d11a8 on Dec 16, 2013
11. laanwj merged this on Dec 16, 2013
12. laanwj closed this on Dec 16, 2013

    ---

13. laanwj deleted the branch on Apr 9, 2014
14. DrahtBot locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
laanwj BitcoinPullTester jgarzik petertodd