I like BitBunker. _But_ first thing that comes to mind when I hear it: BitLocker. We wanted to avoid *Crypt. I guess avoiding resemblance to the windows solution would be good too. On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 19:19:11 +0100 PID0 <p1dz3r0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It's a registered trademark, could always ask for permission, or there's > these which are free: > > ByteBunker > BiteBunker > > Or my new personal favorite (and I can't believe this is free): > > BitEn > > > On 13/06/2014 18:51, Titanus Aegis wrote: > > I really like BitBunker, the alliteration in the name makes it memorable, > > plus I like the connotations of data and safety in the words Bit and > > Bunker, respectively. However there's a hardware storage solution called > > bitbunker already (www.bitbunker.com), I don't know if it's close enough > > since it's IT-related to be considered infringing on their name. > > > > Luis > > > >> What about BitBunker? > >> > >> On 13/06/2014 18:28, Titanus Aegis wrote: > >>> Hi Bill, > >>> Right, I concur. If you need help polling and such let me know. For now I > >>> have a few more options: > >>> > >>> NigmaCrypt / NigmaLock / NigmaSafe / NigmaBox (coming from the word > >>> enigma)BunkerCrypt / BunkerLock > >>> EnCipher / EnCypherCryptoGram / CipherGramCryptoFort / CryptFort / > >>> CipherFortConcealBoxToughCrypt > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Luis > >>> > >>>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:13:38 -0400 > >>>> From: waywardgeek@xxxxxxxxx > >>>> To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> Subject: [ciphershed] Re: Rebranding > >>>> > >>>> Hi, Luis. I personally don't like the names from latin or mythology, > >>>> since at least here in the US, people go "huh?" > >>>> > >>>> Of the suggestions, CryptLock like names, seemed the best to me, but I > >>>> found that they are already in use when I googled. After the rebranding > >>>> release, it will be a *lot* harder to change the name, so I feel good > >>>> about this discussion happening now. > >>>> > >>>> There are a couple of ways to choose a name. One is to have polls, do > >>>> user focus groups, A/B testing and such. I wish we had that kind of > >>>> time, but I feel we need a replacement for TrueCrypt out there ASAP, so > >>>> I don't think we have that luxury. > >>>> > >>>> A second way is to choose a name, and then be open to changing it if a > >>>> better one comes along. This started as "GeekCrypt", which was what I > >>>> came up with in 5 minutes. Then it was FalseCrypt, which actually had > >>>> some support on the truecrypt.ch forum, but some people really hated it. > >>>> Now it is CipherShed. The best measure I have that CipherShed is an OK > >>>> name is that no one has yet suggested one that is clearly better and > >>>> available. Minor changes like CryptoShed or CipherShack don't seem > >>>> worth making the change. Also, people will spell Crypto as cripto. In > >>>> fact, I'm infamous for it! > >>>> > >>>> Given our lack of time, I also tend to put more stock into opinions from > >>>> people who do branding, like Alain. I've run it past three people who > >>>> do branding (if I include Alain), and the consensus is "not bad", though > >>>> I would prefer that they thought "nailed it!" Shown the options, they > >>>> don't seem to have anything worth switching to. > >>>> > >>>> I think we should move forward under the assumption that CipherShed will > >>>> remain the long-term name, but if another name comes along that is > >>>> clearly better before the rebranding release, we should seriously > >>>> consider it. I haven't seen any yet. > >>>> > >>>> Bill > >>>> > >>>> On 6/13/2014 1:07 AM, Titanus Aegis wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Greetings, > >>>>> Firstly hi to everyone, I'm glad this fork is happening and TC won't > >>>>> remain as it is. I'd like to offer some suggestions - aside from the > >>>>> name being trademark-free and the URL being available, best names are > >>>>> as short as possible (keeping it down to 2 or 3 syllables max), easy to > >>>>> remember, and should pass the telephone test (i.e. if you mention the > >>>>> name to someone over a telephone, will they know how to write it > >>>>> properly? A great example of a telephone test fail is flickr.com). For > >>>>> this reason I don't think "cipher" is a good word to use in the name > >>>>> since it can be spelled with an "i" or a "y". > >>>>> Given it's a new name it'll help users recognize it if it suggests what > >>>>> it does (with words like crypto or vault) or the benefits received > >>>>> (privacy, security, peace of mind). Proper names that don't mean > >>>>> anything in and of themselves to the user are great for distinguishing > >>>>> oneself from competitors and branding power down the road (ex: google, > >>>>> yahoo), but require greater branding efforts to gain initial traction > >>>>> and recognition, so I wouldn't recommend that as a priority in this > >>>>> particular case, given the lack of marketing muscle. > >>>>> Apparently many obvious combinations are already taken. These are some > >>>>> I thought of that didn't show up as encryption software in google > >>>>> searches: > >>>>> Privatus (latin word for privacy)Sanctum (a private place from which > >>>>> most people are excluded)Aegis (greek mythology, a shield of > >>>>> protection)ToughBox / HardBox / StoutBoxCryptLockCryptBoltLockBolt > >>>>> /DeadboltCriptify > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> Luis > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> -- > >> > >> At the time of writing, no warrants have been served to me, nor am I > >> under any legal compulsion concerning the CipherShed project. I do not > >> know of any searches of seizures of my assets. > >> > > > > > -- Niklas At the time of writing, no warrants have ever been served to me, Niklas Lemcke, nor am I under any personal legal compulsion concerning the CipherShed project. I do not know of any searches or seizures of my assets.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
