Author: Mike Caldwell 2014-05-04 14:42:40
Published on: 2014-05-04T14:42:40+00:00
The email thread is discussing the use of the term "bit" in Bitcoin and its potential for confusion among those who are not familiar with computer science or Bitcoin. Chris Pacia argues that "bits" is an appropriate term because it is a shortened version of "millibits" and is already part of the word "Bitcoin". Additionally, using "bits" symbolically represents the tech nature of Bitcoin and reclaims a unit of money from the past. Christophe Biocca disagrees, noting that "bit" as a unit is already confusing for those without computer science knowledge and that there are already many confusing terms associated with Bitcoin (such as "mining" and "wallets"). Mike Caldwell argues that naming conventions should be chosen to achieve the clearest communication possible for a wide target audience, rather than based on aesthetics alone. Aaron Voisine adds a humorous note to the conversation, saying that worrying about overloading the word "bit" would be every bit as bad as a two-bit horse with the bit between its teeth that bit the hand that feeds it, or a drill bit broken to bits after just a bit of use. The email thread ends with an advertisement for Selenium testing and links to the Bitcoin-development mailing list.
Updated on: 2023-06-08T20:02:17.074389+00:00