📅 Original date posted:2014-04-20
📝 Original message: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 at 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
Mike Caldwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1x7…ek2am
2023-06-07 15:19:01
in reply to nevent1q…52l2
Author Public Key
npub1x7n0qxyv4z0l3cy6lfm4shpwfqvcqu4w5j33c9t3ewx9gflwjyysxek2amSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 15:19:01Event JSON
{
"id": "f1e9388cbcb946c1941dc1e9a8e4b5ca64f0e16aead3d1f783bb4d13b4280eec",
"pubkey": "37a6f0188ca89ff8e09afa77585c2e48198072aea4a31c1571cb8c5427ee9109",
"created_at": 1686151141,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"99781a5e48b89592c328b457713f372f02d5e23f6adcaf8d886ec06cb862d639",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8e3648b3513fa33811ecd4745ab109a3a26179a9790ef2afbf13e84d4471a41e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9f673e910a69354016e358ae7c962bb3f0a5bbf957725d7c0bc71693019963fd"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-20\n📝 Original message:It is a paradigm that is easy to explain and grasp for neurotypical people. \n\nThe 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.\n\nDoing 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. \n\nIf 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. \n\nMike\n\nSent from my iPhone\n\nOn Apr 20, 2014, at 11:44 AM, \"Arne Brutschy\" \u003cabrutschy at xylon.de\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\u003e I propose that users are offered a preference to denominate the\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin currency in a unit called a bit. Where one bitcoin (BTC)\n\u003e\u003e equals one million bits (bits) and one bit equals 100 satoshis.\n\u003e \n\u003e There have been many proposals for more or less arbitrary subunits. What\n\u003e would be the merit of your proposal? I don't really follow the reasoning\n\u003e that it's better if it's uncommon for everyone rather than just uncommon\n\u003e for people not used to metric units.\n\u003e \n\u003e Regarding the label of a \"bit\": I have to agree with the others that bit\n\u003e is heavily overused as a unit, but I am a computer scientist, so I don't\n\u003e have the \"average joe's\" perspective on this. I find it weird to use as\n\u003e it's already in use in English - \"a bit of work\" etc",
"sig": "7730615df34727066bddb55c0ea55385ca8a39d2e9628444dcf7f9a7d5b52771ae8ca546478434e94dfce352533acacb9d80424f0c172a84f889420afe3bee55"
}