{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2013-11-14\n📝 Original message:On Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:07:58 PM Allen Piscitello wrote:\n\u003e Obviously the answer is to just display all fees and trading rates as BTC\n\u003e or MBTC (.0000005 MBTC fee? how cheap!).  On a more serious note, the\n\u003e transition should definitely be thought out well as it could be very\n\u003e damaging to have this confusion, but I would prefer to do it only once\n\u003e rather than twice.\n\nI wonder if it might make sense to bundle some other terminology fixups at the \nsame time.\n\nRight now, Bitcoin-Qt has been using the term \"confirmations\" (plural) to \nrefer to how many blocks deep a transaction is buried. We also use the term \n\"confirmation\" to refer to the point where a transaction is accepted as paid. \nIMO, the latter use makes sense, but the former leads to confusion especially \nin light of scamcoins which abuse this confusion to claim they have \"faster \nconfirmations\", implying that the actual confirmation occurs faster when it \nreally doesn't. \"5 blocks deep\" may not be more clear to laymen, but at least \nit makes it harder for people to confuse with actual confirmation.\n\nI think we all know the problems with the term \"address\". People naturally \ncompare it to postal addresses, email addresses, etc, which operate \nfundamentally different. I suggest that we switch to using \"invoice id\" to \nrefer to what is now known as addresses, as that seems to get the more natural \nunderstanding to people. On the other hand, with the advent of the payment \nprotocol, perhaps address/invoice id use will die out soon?\n\nThoughts?\n\nLuke"}