On 5/2/14, 10:41 PM, 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
Bit by bit, it's become clear that it's a bit much to worry even a
little bit that overloading the word bit would be every bit as bad
as a two bit horse with the bit between it's teeth that bit the hand
that feeds it, or a drill bit broken to bits after just a bit of use.
Aaron
There's no trick
+1(bit) for your bit on bits.
On 4/05/2014, at 2:18 pm, Aaron Voisine vois...@gmail.com wrote:
Bit by bit, it's become clear that it's a bit much to worry even a
little bit that overloading the word bit would be every bit as bad
as a two bit horse with the bit between it's teeth that bit
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Aaron Voisine vois...@gmail.com wrote:
Bit by bit, it's become clear that it's a bit much to worry even a
little bit that overloading the word bit would be every bit as bad
as a two bit horse with the bit between it's teeth that bit the hand
that feeds it, or a
Wladimir,
what is missing is a decision to pull for the reference client.
Or did I missed that bit?
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
--
Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com wrote:
Wladimir,
what is missing is a decision to pull for the reference client.
Or did I missed that bit?
No opinion - we'll follow whatever the rest does.
Wladimir
I will drink to that!
Bitte ein Bit! (A Bit please - aka Bitburger Beer)
Mike
Sent from my iPhone
On May 4, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Aaron Voisine vois...@gmail.com wrote:
Bit by bit, it's become clear that it's a bit much to worry even a
little bit that overloading the word bit would be every
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
Excellent points Christophe!
Although moving to 1e-6 units is fine for me and I see advantages of doing
this, I don't get that people on this mailing list are fine with calling
such unit bit. It's geeky as hell, ambiguous and confusing.
slush
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Christophe Biocca
bit has a lot of meanings to geeks, so what.
bit means for average people:
- something very small, that 100 satoshi is.
- part of the name Bitcoin
- easy to get conversion 1 coin = 1 million bits = 1 Bitcoin
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
Founder, CEO
http://bitsofproof.com
On 03.05.2014, at 18:02,
I agree with the sentiment that most people don't understand either computer
science or Bitcoin. The goal of getting people to understand enough about
Bitcoin to use it is achievable and a goal that is in scope of our efforts.
Getting them to understand computer science at large at the same
Absent a concerted effort to move to something else other than 'bits', I
would be willing to bet the nomenclature moves in that direction anyway.
'Bits' is just a shorten word for 'millibits' (or microbits, if you
will). It's easier to say and my guess is people would tend to use it
naturally own
+1
On 4 May 2014 02:06, Chris Pacia ctpa...@gmail.com wrote:
Absent a concerted effort to move to something else other than 'bits', I
would be willing to bet the nomenclature moves in that direction anyway.
'Bits' is just a shorten word for 'millibits' (or microbits, if you
will). It's easier
[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
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
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
]
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 11:27 AM
To: Chris Pacia
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Chris Pacia ctpa...@gmail.com wrote:
The term bit is really only overloaded for those who are techy. 95% of
the population never uses
-development] bits: Unit of account
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Chris Pacia ctpa...@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
people don't use bit on a daily basis other than referring to
a little bit of something.
-Original Message-
From: Wladimir [mailto:laa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 11:27 AM
To: Chris Pacia
Cc: Bitcoin Dev
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] bits: Unit of account
On Sun
I am in favor of xbit, my only concern is if average Joes will consider
that name stupid (like various attempts at cool branding with unusual
letters like Q, X, Z, etc). We should see if we can get support for it in
the community and if there would be any notable opposition against it or
not. If
Here is one to please those looking for a “fully qualified” slang word, that
links with the official XBT:
xbit (spoken: ex-bit) would rationalise XBT (where X comes from supranational
use) and is unique.
I personally associate from x to six also supporting the 1e-6 divisor of
Bitcoin.
Let me make a sacrilegious proposal: keep using the name bitcoin, and
shift the decimal point.
There would be a short adaption period, where people will need to talk
about new bitcoins and old bitcoins in order to disambiguate them.
However, Bitcoin users are techies, so I don't think that the
Thomas V:
Your proposal misses the points that:
- this is about a unit with 1e-6 Bitcoins or 100 satoshis.
- it is not about people who know Bitcoin and are techies, but about those who
don’t and aren’t.
The reasons for such a unit are more than shifting the comma some places for
Tamas,
xbit is only a typo or spelling error away from XBT, and some folks may
assume they refer to the same unit of measure, not knowing the new currency
system as developers here do.
From your email, I got the idea of using x as a suffix at the end of a number
of bits e.g. 17500x, like
xbit is close to XBT because it would be the same unit, both would mean 100
satoshi or 1e-6 Bitcoin.
xbit would be for everyday use, XBT for ISO.
I know, the XBT was used by some sites to be a synonym for BTC that is however
in my opinion not yet graved in stone until it is used by e.g.
I told him specifically to bring it here (on a pull request for
Bitcoin Core), as there is no point in making such convention changes
to just one client.
I wasn't aware of any discussion about the bits proposal here before.
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Tamas Blummer ta...@bitsofproof.com
If you absolutely want a name for some small unit (which may be
valuable, not knocking that part of the idea), please use anything
other than bits, which is already a massively overloaded term that
will confuse the hell out of people:
Harddrive costs measured in bits per gigabyte?
An itunes movie
Here is an earlier reference to bits:
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04248.html
I forgot that Alan Reiner was also supporting a unit equals to bits :
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04264.html
and here the
I've been a staunch supporter of microbitcoin and would like to do
anything I can to make sure that we jump directly to it if we're going
to promote changing the default units. And I'm happy to integrate it
into Armory as a default (with appropriate explanations and
settings/options). I'm not so
The world is rapidly becoming a place in which a solid grasp of orders of
magnitude could be considered a basic mathematical skill. People are very
likely to learn what mBTC and µBTC are simply because they risk their money
if they do not. This is not a bad thing and I think stands only to help
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Chris Pacia ctpa...@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
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 laa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Chris Pacia ctpa...@gmail.com wrote:
The
As someone who has put a lot of thought into how to best help typical everyday
people understand bitcoin, I strongly favor 1 bit = 1e-6 BTC as being very
straightforward to explain to non technical types, and also XBT as one bit.
There are a million bits in a bit coin is highly intelligible to
Hello,
While SI units are great for people well versed in them, there is a
very good reason people aren't asking for 100 micro dollars in change.
The average person is not going to be confident that the prefix they
are using is the correct one, people WILL send 1000x more or less than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I agree that a unit based on 1e-6 BTC is easier to use in practice
than BTC. The name microbitcoin is ok-ish. Nearly all countries
officially use the SI-system, but that doesn't mean that the average
citizen knows all the SI prefixes. Mega, kilo and
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
Mainly because it is short, memorable, effectively leads the listener to infer
the proper meaning, is culturally neutral, is easy to say by speakers of just
about any language, and many other reasons.
Mike
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Arne Brutschy abruts...@xylon.de
Hello,
just my two 'cents':
Terms arises by itself. Just as most people speak of coins when they
mean bitcoins. I do not see that bitcoin is currently in common use
except for speculation. Therefore no term for smaller units has
established yet. No problem in my eyes. Time will tell.
- oliver
Culturally neutral? bit in French phonetically collides with slang
for phallus (bitte, with a silent e). Apparently it means louse
in Turkish as well.
Not that this really would be avoidable with any short word (all the
short possible words are usually taken), but it's not neutral.
On Sun, Apr
People in the Bitcoin community are sometimes resistant to the idea of using
the word credit as a unit of Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is not a credit-based
system.
However, given that the average person has close to no understanding of what
credit means, and probably no concern for the
By culturally neutral I mean we avoid deliberately invoking a cultural
reference in the name. For example satoshi would be a reference to Japanese
culture just for being a common Japanese name regardless of who Satoshi turns
out to be.
Mike
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2014, at 1:20 PM,
delurk
What about ubit, pronounced YOU-bit, representing 1e-6 bitcoin? Easy to
say, tied in a visual way to the metric micro, leaves the required 2
decimal places for the marginally numerate.. What more could one want?
/delurk
Also, hi. My first post; plan to get involved over the southern
My impression:
Good because it is short, memorable, and pronounceable by speakers of most
languages (though to most of the world that would be oo-bit, as u being yu
is mostly an English thing)
Downsides include the fact that μ is not a U, it just resembles one. It is a
lowercase M in Greek, a
Something tells me this would be reduced to a single syllable in common usage
I.e. bit.
My 2 cents goes for bit.
Because: Bitcoin is a digital currency, BTC starts with bit, bit refers to
a small amount of something in its regular english usage and lastly 99.9876543%
of people on the planet
If bit had to be preceded by a letter I would nominate ebit or xbit (which
could still be XBT)
Those needing a definition for x could define it as coin/100.
That said, I am still more in favor of bit. Xbit would just solve the
problems others cite about ambiguity if they had to be solved
Bit is simple phonetically, I'm for it.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Mike Caldwell mcaldw...@swipeclock.comwrote:
If bit had to be preceded by a letter I would nominate ebit or xbit
(which could still be XBT)
Those needing a definition for x could define it as coin/100.
That said,
On Apr 21, 2014 3:37 AM, Un Ix slashdevn...@hotmail.com wrote:
Something tells me this would be reduced to a single syllable in common
usage I.e. bit.
What units will be called colloquially is not something developers will
determine. It will vary, depend on language and culture, and is not
I think we have two very good candidates both substantiated with arguments for
their use in their context:
bit - the word for everyday use
XBT - the acronym to fit into the ISO currency set.
both meaning 100 satoshis or 1e-6 Bitcoin.
I am glad that I erred, and this list finaly cares of
48 matches
Mail list logo
