+1 On 4 May 2014 02:06, "Chris Pacia" wrote: > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "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 >