There is no reason that the name of an unauthorized fork of a cryptocurrency should use the name of the original within it.
In a decentralised system based wholly around cypherpunk distrust of central authorisation, you call something unauthorised?
I'm not sure if that's hilarious or just sad.
There has to be some acknowledgement that if you take someone else's work and modify it, you shouldn't then be allowed to claim you are them.
It is by definition a decentralised, anarchic system. The idea of authorisation or ownership of the one true core is hilarious.
That's great, but it's not what I wrote. What "one true core"?
Taking someone's software, modifying it, and touting your change as the next version of their software is wrong. Regardless if the code is meant for a block chain, or anything else.