From: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail•com>
To: Christophe Biocca <christophe.biocca@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] "bits": Unit of account
Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 21:04:52 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53659234.3020207@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A4150064-81C5-4B39-B696-B4F778531F3B@swipeclock.com>
Absent a concerted effort to move to something else other than 'bits', I
would be willing to bet the nomenclature moves in that direction anyway.
'Bits' is just a shorten word for 'millibits' (or microbits, if you
will). It's easier to say and my guess is people would tend to use it
naturally own their own. Kind of like 'bucks' for dollars.
The other synergies are:
-bit is part of the word Bitcoin. The currency unit bit is part of a
whole bitcoin.
-bit symbolically represents the tech nature of the bitcoin.
-bit used to be a unit of money way back when. This largely reclaims it.
-when used as money bit when in references to a precession metal coin.
The name 'bitcoin' references that as well as the mimicking of the gold
standard in the protocol rules.
All around I don't think there is a better fit. I doubt people will get
confused by it. The context it's used in will distinguish it from other
uses of the word.
On 05/03/2014 12:27 PM, Mike Caldwell wrote:
> I agree with the sentiment that most people don't understand either computer science or Bitcoin. The goal of getting people to understand enough about Bitcoin to use it is achievable and a goal that is "in scope" of our efforts. Getting them to understand computer science at large at the same time, less so.
>
> The fact that people routinely confuse RAM and hard drive sizes has much to do with the fact that the average lay person has little need to prioritize this as something to keep in the forefront. They don't get "horribly" confused, they just simply don't get worked up over what looks to them like a rounding error, much to the dismay of anyone who believes that everyone should be an expert at computer science. The average joe may assess (accurately from his perspective) that the distinction isn't important enough to merit significant mental resources and he is justified in not expending them that way even if someone else thinks he should.
>
> Poor understanding is precisely what a proper effort to name this would be to avoid. It is not frill or aesthetics, it is a planned targeting of language to achieve the clearest communication to the widest possible target audience using the language most likely to be understood by them in light of our objectives. It's marketing.
>
> Mike
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 3, 2014, at 9:49 AM, "Christophe Biocca" <christophe.biocca@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>> Context as a disambiguator works fine when the interlocutors
>> understand the topics they're talking about.
>> Not a day goes by without me seeing "neurotypical people" get horribly
>> confused between RAM and Hard Drive sizes, because they share the same
>> units (not that that can be helped, as the units are supposed to be
>> the same, base 1000 vs 1024 notwithstanding).
>>
>> Bit (as a unit) is already really confusing for anyone who doesn't
>> deal with it on a regular basis. I think people who don't see an issue
>> are making an assumption based on their own lack of confusion. We
>> understand computer science AND Bitcoin. Most people have zero
>> understanding of either.
>>
>> Bitcoin already has a ton of issues with terrible names for things:
>>
>> - Mining (for transaction validation).
>> - Addresses (which are meant to be one-time use, and don't even really
>> exist at the network level).
>> - Wallets (which don't hold your bitcoins, can be copied, and all
>> backups can be stolen from equally).
>>
>> I end up having to make the distinctions obvious every time I explain
>> Bitcoin to someone new to it. There's an acceptable tradeoff here,
>> because there were arguably no better words to assign to these
>> concepts (although I'd argue mining is a really awful metaphor, and is
>> the one that prompts the most questions from people). Then add to the
>> pile a bunch of third parties naming themselves after parts of the
>> protocol (Coinbase,Blockchain.info). Not blaming them for it, but I've
>> definitiely seen average people get confused between "the blockchain"
>> and "blockchain.info" (not so much Coinbase, because that name doesn't
>> come up in beginner explanations).
>>
>> It seems downright masochistic to add
>> yet-another-word-that-doesn't-mean-what-you-think-it-means to the pile
>> for no reason other than aesthetics. Are we actively trying to confuse
>> people?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
> unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-04 1:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-01 22:35 Aaron Voisine
2014-05-03 2:06 ` Gordon Mohr
2014-05-03 5:41 ` Aaron Voisine
2014-05-03 15:48 ` Christophe Biocca
2014-05-03 16:02 ` slush
2014-05-03 16:10 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-05-03 16:27 ` Mike Caldwell
2014-05-04 1:04 ` Chris Pacia [this message]
2014-05-04 5:18 ` Drak
2014-05-04 6:15 ` Aaron Voisine
2014-05-04 6:23 ` Un Ix
2014-05-04 6:27 ` Wladimir
2014-05-04 6:36 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-05-04 6:59 ` Wladimir
2014-05-04 14:42 ` Mike Caldwell
2014-05-05 22:33 ` Gordon Mohr
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-04-20 12:35 Mike Gehl
2014-04-20 13:15 ` Rob Golding
2014-04-20 14:28 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-20 14:52 ` Christophe Biocca
2014-04-21 8:52 ` Thomas Voegtlin
2014-04-21 9:34 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-22 14:55 ` Natanael
2014-04-20 14:53 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-04-20 15:05 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-20 15:50 ` Alan Reiner
2014-04-20 16:19 ` Chris Pacia
2014-04-20 16:27 ` Wladimir
2014-04-20 16:30 ` Chris Pacia
2014-04-22 13:51 ` Aaron Axvig
2014-04-23 9:44 ` Danny Hamilton
2014-04-23 9:56 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-23 11:48 ` Chris D'Costa
2014-04-20 16:23 ` Erik Garrison
2014-04-20 16:30 ` Alan Reiner
2014-04-20 16:56 ` Mike Caldwell
2014-04-20 17:47 ` Jannis Froese
2014-04-20 18:10 ` Pavol Rusnak
2014-04-20 17:42 ` Arne Brutschy
2014-04-20 18:11 ` Mike Caldwell
2014-04-20 18:22 ` Arne Brutschy
2014-04-20 18:34 ` Mike Caldwell
2014-04-20 18:43 ` Oliver Egginger
2014-04-20 19:19 ` Christophe Biocca
2014-04-20 19:32 ` Gmail
2014-04-20 20:28 ` Mike Caldwell
2014-04-21 0:16 ` Justin A
2014-04-21 1:18 ` Mike Caldwell
2014-04-21 1:33 ` Un Ix
2014-04-21 3:34 ` Mike Caldwell
2014-04-21 4:08 ` Christopher Paika
2014-04-21 5:41 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-04-21 5:51 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-21 6:21 ` Tamas Blummer
2014-04-21 12:14 ` Un Ix
2014-04-21 12:24 ` Tamas Blummer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53659234.3020207@gmail.com \
--to=ctpacia@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=christophe.biocca@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox