1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
|
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 <mcaldwell@swipeclock.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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 <mcaldwell@swipeclock.com>
To: Christophe Biocca <christophe.biocca@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 12:27:18 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Bitcoin-development] "bits": Unit of account
Thread-Index: Ac9m7I4HXE4uwpYeShGhuDofB0tWvQ==
Message-ID: <A4150064-81C5-4B39-B696-B4F778531F3B@swipeclock.com>
References: <CACq0ZD6EJnG4iwehfcFU-4AhBiNdtyf7eE9iGW8d6rv6327Eug@mail.gmail.com>
<53644F13.1080203@gmail.com>
<CACq0ZD7s8tp8GvJhEhZx4T7xMpeZ+tz5HNKQK-p=f=R10NaCmA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANOOu=9orMZH6fpTfkO8zgwPDmwpA8WW78EKwSTiw2GXn7UCxA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANOOu=9orMZH6fpTfkO8zgwPDmwpA8WW78EKwSTiw2GXn7UCxA@mail.gmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=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" <christophe.biocca@gmail.=
com> 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?
|
