Err, no.
Constantinople is the mis-translation. I don't know what translation you are using, but it's wrong. I use
this very wonderful 1935 purist translation over at LacusCurtius, which correctly uses 'Byzantines' and 'Byzantium' throughout. There are other instances of this in other writing that I've seen - Priscus alternates between 'Byzantium' and 'Constantinople' in my translation of his report on the embassy to Atilla, but I haven't been able to check on that yet. Basically, it comes down to this: that in all probability, 'Byzantion' was the colloquial, and 'Konstantinopolis' was the official. Don't know why that's such an outrageous concept. I think 'Constantinople' has just been introduced into some translations to avoid confusion to the lay reader, which is very nice of them, but unfortunately, a pronounced innacuracy.
As for Procopius, you could take a look at the offending article in the original Greek
here. You're looking for the word beginning with 'B' at the top of the page - Βυζάντιον.)
Pretty famous, but wrong. In particular, you might want to dwell on the fact that the
Corpus Historiae Byzantinae was a collection of Byzantine source material. So who was Wolf et al getting this 'Byzantine' nomenclature off?
As for the rest - I really could go on all day here, (Same goes for Wozza - very good stuff, though) but I'm a bit pressed, so I'll stop derailing the thread now. Another time I think. Interesting debate, though. And I know that this board is board has it's fair share of Byzanto-Romanophiles, and I don't want suffer the full wrath of them all.