{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub12rkw0jajmsck4uwdtksdvtswrlkypusfryjzera7m4fhqta6jhdsz3aqxc","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub12rkw0jajmsck4uwdtksdvtswrlkypusfryjzera7m4fhqta6jhdsz3aqxc","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2013-11-15\n📝 Original message:On 14 November 2013 23:01, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I wonder if it might make sense to bundle some other terminology fixups at\n\u003e the\n\u003e same time.\n\u003e\n\nA very good idea.\n\n\n\u003e Right now, Bitcoin-Qt has been using the term \"confirmations\" (plural) to\n\u003e refer to how many blocks deep a transaction is buried. We also use the term\n\u003e \"confirmation\" to refer to the point where a transaction is accepted as\n\u003e paid.\n\u003e IMO, the latter use makes sense, but the former leads to confusion\n\u003e especially\n\u003e in light of scamcoins which abuse this confusion to claim they have \"faster\n\u003e confirmations\", implying that the actual confirmation occurs faster when it\n\u003e really doesn't. \"5 blocks deep\" may not be more clear to laymen, but at\n\u003e least\n\u003e it makes it harder for people to confuse with actual confirmation.\n\u003e\n\nI think people are more familiar with check clearance - \"the payment/check\nhas cleared\".\n\nIf \"confirmation\" and \"n confirmations\" together are problematic, I'd talk\nabout \"cleared payments\" and \"n confirmations\"\n\nSo \"a payment clears after one confirmation, but you might want to wait\nuntil the payment has been confirmed n times\".\nThen at least you are not using the same word for two different meanings\nand you're using stuff more familiar in popular lexicon.\nI dont think it's helpful for users if we use the word \"blocks\".\n\nWithout the technical details, I just explain to normal bitcoin users that\nthe Bitcoin network checks and confirms the payment is valid (multiple\ntimes).\n\nI think we all know the problems with the term \"address\". People naturally\n\u003e compare it to postal addresses, email addresses, etc, which operate\n\u003e fundamentally different. I suggest that we switch to using \"invoice id\" to\n\u003e refer to what is now known as addresses, as that seems to get the more\n\u003e natural\n\u003e understanding to people. On the other hand, with the advent of the payment\n\u003e protocol, perhaps address/invoice id use will die out soon?\n\u003e\n\nI think \"key id\" is a bit alien at user level - it's not something they are\nused to.\nFor years, people had a problem with  \"email address\", instead using \"email\nnumber\" but they got there eventually. Most people nowadays use \"email\naddress\"\nSo \"payment address\" or \"bitcoin address\" make better sense here when\nqualified as a \"\u003cfoo\u003e address\" and not just an \"address\"\n\nYou could also call it \"payment id\", but I dont think \"invoice id\" since\nno-one pays to an invoice id that's just a reference for a payment, not the\ndestination.\n\nPeople are very familiar with Paypal these days, and are familiar with\n\"paypal address\" or their \"paypal id\" so again I think valid contenders are\n\"bitcoin address\" or \"bitcoin id\".\n\nRegards,\n\nDrak\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131116/4c212074/attachment.html\u003e"}