Bitcoin's biggest problem is the language we use to describe it

[grau]

It appears to me that the language we use determines and limits the adoption of the block chain technology.

We often use words like: mining, payment, de-centralisation, trustless operation that lead to the perception we talk about some obscure virtual currency for speculation and a tool for illicit activity.

We know that there is more to it, but our communication is as if we were trying to explain the Internet is by elaborating on what http:// stands for (Hyper Text Transport Protocol). Explaining Hyper Text is as useless for the purpose of teaching Internet, as e.g. explaining digital signatures for block chain technology. Those technological marvels help us to get it, but they are not on the path of understanding for most others.

Nick Szabo made a remarkable progress by coining the term Trustworthy Computing in http://unenumerated.blogspot.hu/2014/12/the-dawn-of-trustworthy-computing.html

We need more of these words and terms, that trigger the right intuition without a recourse to technical details.

Please point me to similar if you came accross.

[1714895445]

1714895445

[1714895445]

1714895445

[1714895445]

1714895445

[AGD]

Money made by people, not by banks.

[turvarya]

Yeah, that is something I also always struggle about.
My gf knows, that I am really interested in Bitcoin. She is a complete technical noob, but still often asks about technical thinks.
Being a programmer, I don't think my explanations are really understandable for here. I see that, especially when she asks certain thinks again, I already explained several times over the past years(which sometimes really annoys me).

I think another problem about Bitcoin is, that it is quite complex to understand why it is better than fiat. It is easy understandable, that an E-Mail is better than a letter you send via a your post office. Since it is instant and you can just read it from everywhere with a lot of devices.
What makes Bitcoin better than fiat?
You can't just explain it in a few sentences. If you just say, it is faster than fiat and has less fees, people might tell you, they are ok with the speed and fees of fiat, since the can instantly pay with their credit card and mostly don't see the fees involved directly.
If you want to describe, that it is better since it is not controlled by banks or the government, you have to go into detail, why it is bad, that fiat is controlled by banks and the government. That is not something most people agree on in the first place and might also not agree after an explanation.

[grau]

Money made by people, not by banks.

This goes into the wrong direction by creating a narrow and controverse association.

I am looking for the correct and positive terms of the technology.

Mining is an example for an other narrow and misleading term as the Bitcoin created is the reward and not the technical purpose of the machines.
The technical purpose is to validate and order transactions. Therefore calling those machines e.g. stamper would be more appropriate.

[solex]

Money made by people, not by banks.

This goes into the wrong direction by creating a narrow and controverse association.

I am looking for the correct and positive terms of the technology.

Mining is an example for an other narrow and misleading term as the Bitcoin created is the reward and not the technical purpose of the machines.
The technical purpose is to validate and order transactions. Therefore calling those machines e.g. stamper would be more appropriate.

I don't think language matters that much, and once it is out there it becomes hard to change.

Bitcoin's biggest problem is wallet security. As has been pointed out elsewhere, if experts like Bitstamp can't secure their hot wallet then what hope is there for the ordinary man in the street?

Currently, I am reading this paper which is a step in the right direction to solve Bitcoin's biggest problem:

"Securing Bitcoin wallets via threshold signatures"
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~stevenag/bitcoin_threshold_signatures.pdf

[Shiver]

I just watched a video of Brett Scott, in which he says "people tend to make technological solutions to social problems, whereas I tend to go the other way around, starting with gaining understanding the social problem before trying to design a technological solution" (that's not verbatim, but close to what he said).  I guess that kind of shows where we need to be focussed to get adoption.

[grau]

I don't think language matters that much, and once it is out there it becomes hard to change.

It does matter a lot in my experience trying to sell the technology to investors and in enterprise use.

The language we currently use is largerly irrelevant as we are a tiny fraction of the population. Remember the discussion of Bitcoin vs bit.
You were at the forefront of the recognition that having 8 decimals does not resonate with average user. I gave you hints that it does not work well with finance too.

Moving to bit in the currency is good for adoption. I am looking for good choices to refer to block chain technology.

[General_A]

I would argue that Bitcoins's biggest problem is actually distribution of wealth. I have even documented it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=916793.0 .

[solex]

I don't think language matters that much, and once it is out there it becomes hard to change.

It does matter a lot in my experience trying to sell the technology to investors and in enterprise use.

The language we currently use is largerly irrelevant as we are a tiny fraction of the population. Remember the discussion of Bitcoin vs bit.
You were at the forefront of the recognition that having 8 decimals does not resonate with average user. I gave you hints that it does not work well with finance too.

Moving to bit in the currency is good for adoption. I am looking for good choices to refer to block chain technology.

Indeed. I do remember our discussions about the 8 decimals, and your input on the financial system software was crucial.
I guess right now I am dismayed at how many Bitcoin companies (and individuals) are getting coins stolen. Even knowledgeable people who are being very careful about what they do.

I agree that "trustworthy computing" is a good term, and hopefully there are others.

[dmugetsu]

Not everyone have the same understanding about anything

[Q7]

Nice article being written. When it comes to that, my main selling concerning my effort to promote bitcoin is basically by telling people how it can replace cross border transactions where you can move money fast and instantly from one place to another across the globe.

[MataKhobRazi]

I agree with solex. I don't think language is so important.

Personnaly, I don't really understand what http, ssl/tls, etc. etc. represent exactly but that doesn't prevent me from using firefox, google etc. to navigate over the internet.

I believe that most of the people don't understand the way the internet work but they still can use it. I think it will be the same with bitcoin. Once bitcoin is massively used by merchants and consumers with good and secure applications created by developpers, it is not important to understand the "internal side of bitcoin".

Actually, the things that really embarass people about bitcoin is the security and the volatility in my opinion. I discussed with a friend about bitcoin. And he told me it will never go far because it is too volatile and too complicated...

[oyasumi]

Do you like Wittgenstein

[Flashman]

Bitcoin's biggest problem is wallet security. As has been pointed out elsewhere, if experts like Bitstamp can't secure their hot wallet then what hope is there for the ordinary man in the street?

Well Bitstamp do have the problem that they have to let people connect to their system in some way or form.

However, the solution to their problem is probably a solution to the Joe Sixpack problem, how to have a secure wallet in an untrustworthy computing environment.

[Carsiden]

I tend to agree with Graou on this. Teminology is very important, for different reasons.

When I've held seminars to lawyers or other Bitcoin laymen I've found myself having to change the terminology to accurately describe the system.

A miner is not "mining bitcoin" its bookkeeping transactions. The reward is actually more like lottery tickets where every ten minutes a winner is found to have won 25 BTC. I often get questions about why then it has these gold digging metaphors. The problem is that nomenclature now is based on one single Bitcoin application, the virtual currency BTC, and thus when you try to move into other applications, like stocktrading, property shares or insurance, the words we use make no sense.

The second reason was formulated in an interview with Michael Jackson ex-COO at Skype http://cointelegraph.com/news/112572/skype-co-founder-and-ex-coo-people-need-to-speak-people-need-to-transact

He said on the lines of: If a technology looks like money, acts like money then it probably is money, and it will be treated by legislators like money. Shen Skype started they were very careful not to be called a digital phone service because phone companies were so regulated that it would have killed the app. The same goes for Bitcoin, it should never have been called a virtual currency, rather a decentralized ledger or transaction system. It transfers ownership of tokens in a ledger, not currency.

[commandrix]

I've had to explain that the Blockchain is like a ledger that is kept up by people who provide processing power to the Bitcoin network. Sometimes they get a reward for doing so.

[Pingu]

It appears to me that the language we use determines and limits the adoption of the block chain technology.

We often use words like: mining, payment, de-centralisation, trustless operation that lead to the perception we talk about some obscure virtual currency for speculation and a tool for illicit activity.

Words like 'payment' aren't exactly obscure and mining is a pretty simplified term of a complex process. Many people might not understand fiat or economics but its pretty easy to explain decentralization to them but I agree that we should try to find the easist and simplest terms to describe bitcoin to newcommers as to not put them off.

[Flashman]

I generally cop out with the "Magic internet money" explanation...

... but then I'm scarred from being "the" PC guru in the past, where after I'd worked miracles once, I was responsible for every dumb virus they managed to infect themselves with... the idea of being responsible for the same crowd's financial wellbeing gives me the shivers.

[jbreher]

I think another problem about Bitcoin is, that it is quite complex to understand why it is better than fiat.

While I agree with the central thesis of the OP, I disagree that it is complex to explain why it is better than fiat. The problem is that by and large, the populace has absolutely no idea what fiat really is.

If anyone understands fiat, you can tell them the most important reason that Bitcoin is better in one sentence:

Unlike fiat, Bitcoin is not at its core a system designed to slowly steal the entirety of real wealth of the populace at large, and put it in the pockets of international bankers, through the hidden tax called 'inflation'.

[Zer0Sum]

Money made by people, not by banks.

This goes into the wrong direction by creating a narrow and controverse association.

I am looking for the correct and positive terms of the technology.

Mining is an example for an other narrow and misleading term as the Bitcoin created is the reward and not the technical purpose of the machines.
The technical purpose is to validate and order transactions. Therefore calling those machines e.g. stamper would be more appropriate.

Bitcoin's biggest problem is wallet security. As has been pointed out elsewhere, if experts like Bitstamp can't secure their hot wallet then what hope is there for the ordinary man in the street?

Yes, engineers roll their eyes...
And assume "everyone" has a clean Linus install in a virtual machine on demand...
With a system set up to move money between hot/cold wallets.

Doesn't everyone here? Along with your 3rd party software that generates 44 char random keys? No?

But ordinary people are creeped out by geeks...
And want no part of the security nightmare that is crypto.