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 1WgcAg-0001i1-1Z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 03 May 2014 15:48:14 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.170; envelope-from=christophe.biocca@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f170.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com ([209.85.213.170]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WgcAe-0006iy-GH for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 03 May 2014 15:48:14 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id r10so2822278igi.1 for ; Sat, 03 May 2014 08:48:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.26.206 with SMTP id rn14mr23037616icb.13.1399132086310; Sat, 03 May 2014 08:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.102.136 with HTTP; Sat, 3 May 2014 08:48:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <53644F13.1080203@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 11:48:06 -0400 Message-ID: From: Christophe Biocca To: Bitcoin Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (christophe.biocca[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WgcAe-0006iy-GH 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 15:48:14 -0000 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? On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Aaron Voisine wrote: > I have to agree with Mike. Human language is surprisingly tolerant of > overloading and inference from context. Neurotypical people have no > problem with it and perceive a software engineer's aversion to it as > being pedantic and strange. Note that "bits" was a term for a unit of > money long before the invention of digital computers. > > Aaron > > There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole > government working for you -- Will Rodgers > > > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Gordon Mohr wrote: >> [resend - apologies if duplicate] >> >> Microbitcoin is a good-sized unit, workable for everyday transaction >> values, with room-to-grow, and a nice relationship to satoshis as 'cents= '. >> >> But "bits" has problems as a unit name. >> >> "Bits" will be especially problematic whenever people try to graduate >> from informal use to understanding the system internals - that is, when >> the real "bits" of key sizes, hash sizes, and storage/bandwidth needs >> become important. The "bit" as "binary digit" was important enough that >> Satoshi named the system after it; that homage gets lost if the word is >> muddied with a new retconned meaning that's quite different. >> >> Some examples of possible problems: >> >> * If "bit" equals "100 satoshis", then the natural-language unpacking of >> "bit-coin" is "100 satoshi coin", which runs against all prior usage. >> >> * If people are informed that a "256-bit private key" is what ultimately >> controls their balances, it could prompt confusion like, "if each key >> has 256-bits, will I need 40 keys to hold 10,000.00 bits?" >> >> * When people learn that there are 8 bits to a byte, they may think, >> "OK, my wallet holding my 80,000.00 bits will then take up 10 kilobytes"= . >> >> * When people naturally extend "bit" into "kilobits" to mean "1000 >> bits", then the new coinage "kilobits" will mean the exact same amount >> (100,000 satoshi) as many have already been calling "millibits". >> >> I believe it'd be best to pick a new made-up single-syllable word as a >> synonym for "microbitcoin", and I've laid out the case for "zib" as that >> word at . >> >> 'Zib' also lends itself to an expressive unicode symbol, '=C6=B5' >> (Z-with-stroke), that remains distinctive even if it loses its stroke or >> gets case-reversed. (Comparatively, all 'b'-derived symbols for >> data-bits, bitcoins, or '100 satoshi bits' risk collision in contexts >> where subtleties of casing/stroking are lost.) >> >> (There's summary of more problems with "bit" in the zibcoin.org FAQ at: >> .) >> >> - Gordon >> >> On 5/1/14, 3:35 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote: >>> I'm also a big fan of standardizing on microBTC as the standard unit. >>> I didn't like the name "bits" at first, but the more I think about it, >>> the more I like it. The main thing going for it is the fact that it's >>> part of the name bitcoin. If Bitcoin is the protocol and network, bits >>> are an obvious choice for the currency unit. >>> >>> I would like to propose using Unicode character U+0180, lowercase b >>> with stroke, as the symbol to represent the microBTC denomination, >>> whether we call bits or something else: >>> http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/0180/index.htm >>> >>> Another candidate is Unicode character U+2422, the blank symbol, but I >>> prefer stroke b. >>> http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2422/index.htm >>> >>> Aaron >>> >>> There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole >>> government working for you -- Will Rodgers >>> >>>> On Apr 21, 2014 5:41 AM, "Pieter Wuille" wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Apr 21, 2014 3:37 AM, "Un Ix" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Something tells me this would be reduced to a single syllable in comm= on >>>>> usage I.e. bit. >>>> >>>> What units will be called colloquially is not something developers wil= l >>>> determine. It will vary, depend on language and culture, and is not >>>> relevant to this discussion in my opinion. >>>> >>>> It may well be that people in some geographic or language area will en= d up >>>> (or for a while) calling 1e-06 BTC "bits". That's fine, but using that= as >>>> "official" name in software would be very strange and potentially conf= using >>>> in my opinion. As mentioned by others, that would seem to me like call= ing >>>> dollars "bucks" in bank software. Nobody seems to have a problem with >>>> having colloquial names, but "US dollar" or "euro" are far less ambigu= ous >>>> than "bit". I think we need a more distinctive name. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Pieter >>> >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- >>> "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 availa= ble. >>> 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 availab= le. >> 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 availabl= e. > 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