From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WbwDA-0002Yb-Di for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 18:11:28 +0000 Received-SPF: fail (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of swipeclock.com does not designate 74.201.97.201 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.201.97.201; envelope-from=mcaldwell@swipeclock.com; helo=mxout.myoutlookonline.com; Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com ([74.201.97.201]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1WbwD8-0004nC-M1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 18:11:28 +0000 Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E9541683E for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 14:11:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at mail.lan Received: from HUB027.mail.lan (unknown [10.110.2.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B58541682A for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 14:11:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MAILR023.mail.lan ([10.110.18.122]) by HUB027.mail.lan ([10.110.17.27]) with mapi; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 14:10:09 -0400 From: Mike Caldwell CC: Bitcoin Dev Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 14:11:18 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Bitcoin-development] "bits": Unit of account Thread-Index: Ac9cw+3cw/e+xzXlR+ygsh2ClPDIQQ== Message-ID: <1C408C12-B39B-46E4-B997-153D566158B1@swipeclock.com> References: <53540715.7050803@xylon.de> In-Reply-To: <53540715.7050803@xylon.de> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 6.1 (++++++) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 4.0 SPF_CHECK_FAIL SPF reports sender host as NOT permitted to send mails from 0.9 SPF_FAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail) 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header X-Headers-End: 1WbwD8-0004nC-M1 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] "bits": Unit of account X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 18:11:28 -0000 It is a paradigm that is easy to explain and grasp for neurotypical people.= =20 The average mind has no problem overloading words and distinguishing the in= tended meaning from context. For most people, overloading a single syllable= word with a new meaning is much less complicated than using a unique 3+ sy= llable word like satoshi or micro-anything. Doing software development warps our minds to demand fully qualified names = for everything. We know our compilers would say "bit? Fatal error 0xaaabbbb= wtf, can't continue, not sure if you mean a Boolean or a dog bite". But th= is peculiarity should not be projected onto the people we are trying to get= bitcoin to appeal to, not if we want them to feel like we think about thei= r experience.=20 If I were to say "a Bitcoin can be divided into a million bits", less than = 0.1% of average joes would think I was talking about German beers or the th= ing that goes in horses mouths. Really, most people are good at using conte= xt to relate this to "a dollar can be divided into 100 cents" and accepting= it. This requires much less of their mind resources than using SI prefixe= s correctly or learning 3 syllable words that (to them) have no instantly a= pparent relationship to Bitcoin.=20 Mike Sent from my iPhone On Apr 20, 2014, at 11:44 AM, "Arne Brutschy" wrote: >> I propose that users are offered a preference to denominate the >> Bitcoin currency in a unit called a bit. Where one bitcoin (BTC) >> equals one million bits (bits) and one bit equals 100 satoshis. >=20 > There have been many proposals for more or less arbitrary subunits. What > would be the merit of your proposal? I don't really follow the reasoning > that it's better if it's uncommon for everyone rather than just uncommon > for people not used to metric units. >=20 > Regarding the label of a "bit": I have to agree with the others that bit > is heavily overused as a unit, but I am a computer scientist, so I don't > have the "average joe's" perspective on this. I find it weird to use as > it's already in use in English - "a bit of work" etc