Re: [Bitcoin-development] "bits": Unit of account

[Drak <drak@zikula.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5774 bytes --]

+1
On 4 May 2014 02:06, "Chris Pacia" <ctpacia@gmail.com> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7293 bytes --]