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; 
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
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] "bits": Unit of account
Precedence: list

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?