awareness, project name is basically the same as the tech it compiles into.

[zander]

Since the beginning, the low level language of Bitcoin has been called "Script". (wiki).
In the hallways its called" Bitcoin Script". Obviously the term we use to differentiate between the now different languages is btc and bch is we should call ours "bitcoin cash script".

And this is where this issue report comes in. We were talking about missing features in "cashscript" suddenly it wasn't clear if the person just abbreviated the low level language, or was talking about this project.

In general, you won't find a lot of products out in the wider world that replace one thing with another of the same name. Where CashScript compiles into bitcoincashscript, which is practically the same name. I suspect that the positioning of such a product name is sufficiently difficult that people that tried such a thing in the past renamed themselves after a while.

I get there is a history, but today we have a very confusing situation. It basically makes it hard to explain the difference and raises the threshold on entry by learning this extra thing.

If nothing else, maybe add a '2' to the name. CashScript2, or Cash2Script. I don't know. Something actually creative may be useful too, the circle of users is small enough to pull that off.

Please realize that a product called CashScript, which compiles into "Bitcoin Cash Script" is confusing and hurts your product and (since its pretty darn useful) hurts Bitcoin Cash devs on-boarding.

[2qx]

The term "BitcoinScript" makes it more searchable than the two words independently.

I don't feel the Bitcoin Script language necessarily needs a new name. I don't think the same arguments apply for the language as the forked assets.

[rkalis]

Hey @zander, thanks for opening this issue. I agree that there can be some confusion around "CashScript" vs "Bitcoin Cash Script". However, I don't think that confusion is big enough to warrant a rebranding.

I'll leave this issue open in case other people want to chime in. Perhaps I could change my mind on this if presented with some further points that illustrate this confusion, but as it is right now I don't see a clear need for rebranding.