Message-ID: <53541079.9000909@xylon.de>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 20:22:49 +0200
From: Arne Brutschy <abrutschy@xylon.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Caldwell <mcaldwell@swipeclock.com>
References: <CAJKMfeQO6pyi5b-83FyMSHcq0Sa1QkP+RouQVBdCYPtXXboY8A@mail.gmail.com>	<53540715.7050803@xylon.de>
	<1C408C12-B39B-46E4-B997-153D566158B1@swipeclock.com>
In-Reply-To: <1C408C12-B39B-46E4-B997-153D566158B1@swipeclock.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] "bits": Unit of account
Precedence: list


I agree that overloading isn't an issue when necessary, but my point was
that the necessity is lacking. If we're free to pick anything, why pick
something that is overloaded?

Moreover, "bit" is an abbreviation of bitcoin and might be confused with
it. Most currencies use a work that is phonetically very different and
short, so why not do the same?

Pluk, or cred, or finney (as proposed the thread I posted), or
whichever. We could call it "unsp" for unspent ;)

Arne


On 20/04/14 20:11, Mike Caldwell wrote:
> It is a paradigm that is easy to explain and grasp for neurotypical
> people.
> 
> The average mind has no problem overloading words and distinguishing
> the intended meaning from context. For most people, overloading a
> single syllable word with a new meaning is much less complicated than
> using a unique 3+ syllable word like satoshi or micro-anything.
> 
> Doing software development warps our minds to demand fully qualified
> names for everything. We know our compilers would say "bit? Fatal
> error 0xaaabbbbwtf, can't continue, not sure if you mean a Boolean or
> a dog bite".  But this peculiarity should not be projected onto the
> people we are trying to get bitcoin to appeal to, not if we want them
> to feel like we think about their experience.
> 
> If I were to say "a Bitcoin can be divided into a million bits", less
> than 0.1% of average joes would think I was talking about German
> beers or the thing that goes in horses mouths. Really, most people
> are good at using context to relate this to "a dollar can be divided
> into 100 cents" and accepting it.  This requires much less of their
> mind resources than using SI prefixes correctly or learning 3
> syllable words that (to them) have no instantly apparent relationship
> to Bitcoin.
> 
> Mike
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Apr 20, 2014, at 11:44 AM, "Arne Brutschy" <abrutschy@xylon.de>
> wrote:
> 
>>> I propose that users are offered a preference to denominate the 
>>> Bitcoin currency in a unit called a bit. Where one bitcoin (BTC) 
>>> equals one million bits (bits) and one bit equals 100 satoshis.
>> 
>> There have been many proposals for more or less arbitrary subunits.
>> What would be the merit of your proposal? I don't really follow the
>> reasoning that it's better if it's uncommon for everyone rather
>> than just uncommon for people not used to metric units.
>> 
>> Regarding the label of a "bit": I have to agree with the others
>> that bit is heavily overused as a unit, but I am a computer
>> scientist, so I don't have the "average joe's" perspective on this.
>> I find it weird to use as it's already in use in English - "a bit
>> of work" etc
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
> "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and
> their applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, 
> this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! 
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech 
> _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development
> mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net 
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>