Gordon Mohr [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2014-05-03 to 2014-05-05
💬 Posted a total of 2 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: Bitcoin-development
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:20:43

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-05-05
📝 Original message: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" was a term for a unit of
> money long before the invention of digital computers.
Of course people *can* manage, when they need to; natural language is
full of such overloading. But the clashes are not costless, they add
mental load for first-time learners and low-context users.
So the concern is, when there's a free choice, why not bootstrap words
that are less fragile and context-dependent? Why add extra comprehension
gotchas into what is already a challenging domain?
And it's exactly the aspect that makes 'bit' attractive – "it's right
there in the name _Bit_coin!" – that equally presents the clash –
because the sense of 'bit' honored in the "Bitcoin" name, and central to
the systems' essential properties, is the binary digit.
It's like intentionally introducing a 'false friend' word-correlation
between the vernacular of the casual Bitcoin user, and the language of
Bitcoin experts. And the word pair is nearly auto-antonymic in some
essential dimensions: indivisible vs. divisible, base-2 vs. base-10,
composed-geometrically vs. composed-arithmetically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_friend - interferes w/ lang learning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym
In naming amounts, there's no desperate need to stay in the shallow
crowded pool of words just derived from "bit" and "coin". Real
currencies have many names for their units, including subunits with
highly-unrelated sounds. The contrasting words help create more shades
of meaning for different purposes. Some examples:
dollars/bucks - bits (1/8ths) - dimes (1/10ths) - cents (1/100ths)
pounds/quid - shillings (1/20ths) - pence (1/100th; formerly 1/240th)
yuan/kuai - jiao (1/10ths) - fen (1/100ths)
Regarding the cute example of contextual disambiguation...
On 5/3/14, 11:15 PM, Aaron Voisine 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 drill bit broken to bits after just a bit of use.
That there are many existing definitions doesn't reassure that one
*extra* definition will still be costless, especially for
low-literacy/low-context/low-numeracy users or learners.
Note that this example *doesn't* showcase the new proposed
'100-satoshi-value' usage, nor activate the 'binary digit' meaning. (It
does activate the "part/quantity, usually small or imprecise" sense of
'bit', 7 times depending on how you classify the idioms.)
Try instead this mash of concepts, which someone deciding whether to
trust 'bits' will face:
"Bitcoin uses the digital science of bits, the indivisible 1s and 0s of
computer logic, to create a networked money measured in bits, which
split into 100 indivisible cents called satoshis. Bit amounts are
represented as 64-bit integer counts of 1/100th of a bit, so 64-bit
integers can represent any balance from the smallest positive bit total,
0.01 bits (integer 1), up to a number over 92 quintillion bits (2^63-1,
integer 9,223,372,036,854,775,808).
That max value won't be needed, though, because a crucial bit of the
original Satoshi design is a maximum issuance of 21,000,000,000,000.00
bits (21 trillion bits, 21 terabits). These new bits are awarded to
computers racing to complete a digital verification task on an
algorithmic schedule: currently 25 million bits (25 megabits) arrive
about every 10 minutes. That is, the total number of Bitcoin bits is
increasing at 6.33 Kbps, though that arrival slows to 0 bps by around
the year 2140.
The most important bit to remember is that your ability to spend bits is
controlled by secret 256-bit numbers, called private keys, bits of info
that only you know. The fact that these keys are 256-bits long is what
makes them practically unguessable, even if someone had a computing
budget of all the bits in the world, or built a computer out of all the
bits in the universe. (That is, even though the network can create 25
million bits every 10 minutes, it can't guess your secret 256 bits in
the lifetime of the universe!)
Watch out, though: human-chosen passwords and 4-8 word phrases typically
provide much less than 128 bits of security, far too little to create a
256-bit key. And in the math of bits, having half as many bits doesn't
mean half the security, it means the square-root as much security. (For
a 128-bit shortfall, that's 2^128 or 340 billion billion billion billion
times less strength.)
If your secret has enough bits, though, you can be confident that you
can put millions of dollars into bits, because of the cryptographic
power of hundreds of bits. The current value of a bit is 1/20th of a US
cent, so 256 bits has the purchasing power of about 11¢.
If you say you've got a bit of bitcoin in your wallet, I'll need you to
be a bit more specific. If you've got one bit of bitcoin, you've got
1/20th of a cent worth, an insignificant bit. But if you've got one
bitcoin, you've got about $440 worth, quite a bit! Now you know a bit
about Bitcoin, where your highly-valuable bits are protected by the
science of bits. Get some bits now, they're small and still cheap, what
is there to lose?"
Now, most people may never need to understand binary digits and
information science. But if a future of widespread cryptocurrency
success comes to pass, more people than ever before will want (and need)
to understand the basics, and we can help them with clear terminology.
I'd also point out to those who've built their brands around the word
'bit' that while it may seem grand to have the currency's most-common
unit in your name/logo, you might wind up snake-bit. How?
*If* 'bit' is effectively bootstrapped to mean a tangible amount that
people understand intuitively for everyday commerce, that amount is
currently tiny (1/20th of a USD cent) and would still be tiny (10¢) if
bitcoin appreciates in value over 200x to USD$100K per bitcoin.
So "bitpay" starts reading as "penny-pay" – and under an optimistic
appreciation scenario might someday read as "dime-pay".
"bitsofproof" reads as "pennies-of-proof" or someday "dimes-of-proof".
- Gordon

2023-06-07 15:20:35

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-05-02
📝 Original message:[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 informal use to understanding the system internals - that is, when
the real "bits" of key sizes, hash sizes, and storage/bandwidth needs
become important. The "bit" as "binary digit" was important enough that
Satoshi named the system after it; that homage gets lost if the word is
muddied with a new retconned meaning that's quite different.
Some examples of possible problems:
* If "bit" equals "100 satoshis", then the natural-language unpacking of
"bit-coin" is "100 satoshi coin", which runs against all prior usage.
* If people are informed that a "256-bit private key" is what ultimately
controls their balances, it could prompt confusion like, "if each key
has 256-bits, will I need 40 keys to hold 10,000.00 bits?"
* When people learn that there are 8 bits to a byte, they may think,
"OK, my wallet holding my 80,000.00 bits will then take up 10 kilobytes".
* When people naturally extend "bit" into "kilobits" to mean "1000
bits", then the new coinage "kilobits" will mean the exact same amount
(100,000 satoshi) as many have already been calling "millibits".
I believe it'd be best to pick a new made-up single-syllable word as a
synonym for "microbitcoin", and I've laid out the case for "zib" as that
word at <http://zibcoin.org>.
'Zib' also lends itself to an expressive unicode symbol, 'Ƶ'
(Z-with-stroke), that remains distinctive even if it loses its stroke or
gets case-reversed. (Comparatively, all 'b'-derived symbols for
data-bits, bitcoins, or '100 satoshi bits' risk collision in contexts
where subtleties of casing/stroking are lost.)
(There's summary of more problems with "bit" in the zibcoin.org FAQ at:
<http://zibcoin.org/faq#why-not-bits-to-mean-microbitcoins>.)
- Gordon
On 5/1/14, 3:35 PM, Aaron Voisine wrote:
> 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 choice for the currency unit.
>
> I would like to propose using Unicode character U+0180, lowercase b
> with stroke, as the symbol to represent the microBTC denomination,
> whether we call bits or something else:
> http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/0180/index.htm
>
> Another candidate is Unicode character U+2422, the blank symbol, but I
> prefer stroke b.
> http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2422/index.htm
>
> Aaron
>
> There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole
> government working for you -- Will Rodgers
>
>> On Apr 21, 2014 5:41 AM, "Pieter Wuille" <pieter.wuille at gm...> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 21, 2014 3:37 AM, "Un Ix" <slashdevnull at ...> 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
>> relevant to this discussion in my opinion.
>>
>> It may well be that people in some geographic or language area will end up
>> (or for a while) calling 1e-06 BTC "bits". That's fine, but using that as
>> "official" name in software would be very strange and potentially confusing
>> in my opinion. As mentioned by others, that would seem to me like calling
>> dollars "bucks" in bank software. Nobody seems to have a problem with
>> having colloquial names, but "US dollar" or "euro" are far less ambiguous
>> than "bit". I think we need a more distinctive name.
>>
>> --
>> Pieter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
> unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform available.
> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>