Now we're getting somewhere
To build on this:
Protocol: BTXP (Bitcoin Transaction Protocol); blockchains can use different transaction protocols, so it is important to specify that we're talking about the Bitcoin Transaction Protocol, as opposed to the Ethereum Transaction Protocol or the Ripple Transaction Protocol.
Currency: bitcoin, lower-cased, like "dollar," with the currency code "XBT" in line with ISO 4217.
Unit of account: bits, 1/1,000,000 of 1 XBT. Most people will speak in terms of "bits."
Network: Today, Bitcoin, tomorrow, the Blockchain (to give a crude analogy, think ARPANET, NSFNET, etc -> the Internet, or, generically, many IP networks -> the Internet).
The reason I believe there will eventually be "the Blockchain" is because a blockchain is only worth using if it is secure, and blockchain security is a mutually exclusive affair. If validators can commit to securing (or attacking!) two blockchains at once with negligible marginal cost to doing so, then the blockchain which is worth less in terms of market cap and block reward will always be vulnerable. If a validator must choose between two blockchains to secure, then they will always choose the one which will provide them with the greatest profit if they hope to maintain a competitive advantage and stay in business. This includes proof of stake systems, where the "mining rig" is a stash of stake that must be purchased ahead of time. Where this mutually-exclusive-security dynamic differs is in trust-based consensus systems, which can operate in parallel with negligible marginal cost while at the same time have an equally high cost of attack for each parallel blockchain; the validator who attacks one such system will lose all of the trust that nodes have granted them in every system.
Regarding Andreas' comments and the comments of others in this thread, I personally do not mind the name Bitcoin. It does place more emphasis on the "p2p electronic cash" aspect of the system (as intended) than the "global consensus for transaction ordering in a distributed ledger" aspect of the system i.e. the blockchain. This could be regarded as a mistake, but it got the right demographic excited enough that in just over 6 years we now have a $4-billion-and-growing piece of public infrastructure that can be used for all kinds of cool things. By drilling into people over and over "it's used for payments, it's used for payments, it's used for payments," Satoshi gave the blockchain a clear use-case where people might otherwise have looked at the system and said, "distributed timestamping? meh." I think Bitcoin could use better marketing, and am always interested in seeing new takes on the branding, but the name is something I am happy to promote.
The "negative stigma" that the "mainstream media" dumps onto Bitcoin (perhaps at the behest of advertisers and special interests who feel threatened by it?) does not bother me any more than the "negative stigma" of the early Internet bothers me. Ever heard of the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse? History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme, and the captured media's stigmatization of Bitcoin is no different. Try as they might, they cannot kill Bitcoin.