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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <ctpacia@gmail.com>) id 1WbudG-00087H-KW
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:30:18 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.172; envelope-from=ctpacia@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f172.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com ([209.85.214.172])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WbudF-0001Q8-UW
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:30:18 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id wo20so3474526obc.17
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.176.9 with SMTP id ce9mr1207416oec.55.1398011412307; Sun,
20 Apr 2014 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.232.136 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.232.136 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJBWwstMjKR-A6RyyaA3S4E1d_qapMzyrFkgHNxp__XqDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJKMfeQO6pyi5b-83FyMSHcq0Sa1QkP+RouQVBdCYPtXXboY8A@mail.gmail.com>
<3A69904F-0A3D-42E9-9DE7-067874E710BB@bitsofproof.com>
<CAPg+sBha=cUHOWcU29yLrC4WTy5EghOGpVGAcQ8S0fuMvpLeRw@mail.gmail.com>
<DFFB1B2C-F10B-4CF7-9D01-F6A27F9FA229@bitsofproof.com>
<5353ECDF.6090903@gmail.com>
<CAB+qUq6iZovMftT+cLbQ63UN=QEmFwGsmUUyWiivSRrMaaDVZg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJBWwstMjKR-A6RyyaA3S4E1d_qapMzyrFkgHNxp__XqDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:30:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB+qUq4m0-T6iL3rampmemVam5mgFScTOBCM3XrgXvUUJ12X_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118226ca434f204f77be555
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
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
(ctpacia[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-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: 1WbudF-0001Q8-UW
Cc: 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: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:30:18 -0000
--089e0118226ca434f204f77be555
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
You're correct, my impression of the term is based of what I experience in
the US. If it is more widely used in other cultures that should be a
consideration.
On Apr 20, 2014 12:27 PM, "Wladimir" <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The term bit is really only overloaded for those who are techy. 95% of
> the
> > population never uses the term bit in their daily lives and I doubt most
> > could even name one use of the term.
> > Plus bit used to be a unit of money way back when, so this is kind of
> > reclaiming it. I think it's a great fit.
>
> That's a very anglocentric way of thinking.
>
> Here in the Netherlands, a "bit" is something you put in a horses's
> mouth. It's also used as imported word (in the information sense).
> We've never used the term for money.
>
> Wladimir
>
--089e0118226ca434f204f77be555
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">You're correct, my impression of the term is based of wh=
at I experience in the US. If it is more widely used in other cultures that=
should be a consideration.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2014 12:27 PM, "Wladimir" &=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:laanwj@gmail.com">laanwj@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br t=
ype=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Chris Pacia <<a href=3D"mailto:ctpacia@=
gmail.com">ctpacia@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> The term bit is really only overloaded for those who are techy. 95% of=
the<br>
> population never uses the term bit in their daily lives and I doubt mo=
st<br>
> could even name one use of the term.<br>
> Plus bit used to be a unit of money way back when, so this is kind of<=
br>
> reclaiming it. I think it's a great fit.<br>
<br>
That's a very anglocentric way of thinking.<br>
<br>
Here in the Netherlands, a "bit" is something you put in a horses=
's<br>
mouth. It's also used as imported word (in the information sense).<br>
We've never used the term for money.<br>
<br>
Wladimir<br>
</blockquote></div>
--089e0118226ca434f204f77be555--
|
