From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Wgcmd-0002wD-7O for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 03 May 2014 16:27:27 +0000 Received-SPF: fail (sog-mx-3.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-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wgcmc-0007o7-De for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 03 May 2014 16:27:27 +0000 Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C68A8BF94A for ; Sat, 3 May 2014 12:27:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at mail.lan Received: from HUB027.mail.lan (unknown [10.110.2.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9641C8BF2EC for ; Sat, 3 May 2014 12:27:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MAILR023.mail.lan ([10.110.18.122]) by HUB027.mail.lan ([10.110.17.27]) with mapi; Sat, 3 May 2014 12:26:09 -0400 From: Mike Caldwell To: Christophe Biocca Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 12:27:18 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Bitcoin-development] "bits": Unit of account Thread-Index: Ac9m7I4HXE4uwpYeShGhuDofB0tWvQ== Message-ID: References: <53644F13.1080203@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: 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: 4.9 (++++) 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) X-Headers-End: 1Wgcmc-0007o7-De Cc: Bitcoin Development 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: Sat, 03 May 2014 16:27:27 -0000 I agree with the sentiment that most people don't understand either compute= r science or Bitcoin. The goal of getting people to understand enough abou= t Bitcoin to use it is achievable and a goal that is "in scope" of our effo= rts. 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" con= fused, 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 sho= uld be an expert at computer science. The average joe may assess (accurate= ly from his perspective) that the distinction isn't important enough to mer= it significant mental resources and he is justified in not expending them t= hat 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 lang= uage to achieve the clearest communication to the widest possible target au= dience using the language most likely to be understood by them in light of = our objectives. It's marketing.=20 Mike Sent from my iPhone > On May 3, 2014, at 9:49 AM, "Christophe Biocca" wrote: >=20 > 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). >=20 > 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. >=20 > Bitcoin already has a ton of issues with terrible names for things: >=20 > - 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). >=20 > 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). >=20 > 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?