If we seriously want this to move on, we need to start thinking like real users, not like techies.
Remember that techies are the ones who invent multi million dollar anti gravity ball point pens, where users just use pencils!
Topic: Bitcoin needs to be simplified for the stupid. (Read 7638 times)
Have we stopped calling users stupid yet?
If we seriously want this to move on, we need to start thinking like real users, not like techies.
Remember that techies are the ones who invent multi million dollar anti gravity ball point pens, where users just use pencils!
If we seriously want this to move on, we need to start thinking like real users, not like techies.
Remember that techies are the ones who invent multi million dollar anti gravity ball point pens, where users just use pencils!
I am going to be working on this very soon:
I happen to be pretty good at explaining things in laments terms, I have 2 big "experiences" doing so:
1. I have 2 little brothers that are 10 years younger than me, so I have always had to explain some difficult ideas (and just general concepts), in simple form.
2. I am not much of a "techie". I learned base HTML for Myspace, then posted on FB for like 3 years. And that was ALL the experience I had with the internet, besides researching Entheogens, "god" and RCs since I was 14....
Then 2 years ago, I learned about AdSense (while broke looking for sources of income) and started doing a LOT more stuff on the internet. SO I'm good at helping others that don't really know what's up with everything.
I plan on making YouTube videos, Facebook groups and Forum topics (on other websites) to start it off. Then eventually make flyers, mailers, billboards and even late night infomercials.
I happen to be pretty good at explaining things in laments terms, I have 2 big "experiences" doing so:
1. I have 2 little brothers that are 10 years younger than me, so I have always had to explain some difficult ideas (and just general concepts), in simple form.
2. I am not much of a "techie". I learned base HTML for Myspace, then posted on FB for like 3 years. And that was ALL the experience I had with the internet, besides researching Entheogens, "god" and RCs since I was 14....
Then 2 years ago, I learned about AdSense (while broke looking for sources of income) and started doing a LOT more stuff on the internet. SO I'm good at helping others that don't really know what's up with everything.
I plan on making YouTube videos, Facebook groups and Forum topics (on other websites) to start it off. Then eventually make flyers, mailers, billboards and even late night infomercials.
Then maybe this button could work like this:
1. You click the donate button.
2. Then a list of available options is given, e.g.
a) support the person for keeping the wiki up to date (I would donate to this feature, because the wiki is outdated)
b) retail feature #1
c) retail feature #2
d) business feature #1
3. A user financially supports the feature the user wants to be implemented.
As I said -- that's just not going to happen. Donation (if it will ever be implemented) will be in general, for the bitcoin dev team, not for specific features.1. You click the donate button.
2. Then a list of available options is given, e.g.
a) support the person for keeping the wiki up to date (I would donate to this feature, because the wiki is outdated)
b) retail feature #1
c) retail feature #2
d) business feature #1
3. A user financially supports the feature the user wants to be implemented.
Okay. I tried and I failed. Thanks for your time.
Then maybe this button could work like this:
1. You click the donate button.
2. Then a list of available options is given, e.g.
a) support the person for keeping the wiki up to date (I would donate to this feature, because the wiki is outdated)
b) retail feature #1
c) retail feature #2
d) business feature #1
3. A user financially supports the feature the user wants to be implemented.
As I said -- that's just not going to happen. Donation (if it will ever be implemented) will be in general, for the bitcoin dev team, not for specific features. 1. You click the donate button.
2. Then a list of available options is given, e.g.
a) support the person for keeping the wiki up to date (I would donate to this feature, because the wiki is outdated)
b) retail feature #1
c) retail feature #2
d) business feature #1
3. A user financially supports the feature the user wants to be implemented.
Regarding, the ''donate'' button in Bicoin-Qt: how can the retail users be sure the money will not be spent on developing the business features?
They don't. But then again, if there is no trust in the first place, the whole exercise is pointless.Then maybe this button could work like this:
1. You click the donate button.
2. Then a list of available options is given, e.g.
a) support the person for keeping the wiki up to date (I would donate to this feature, because the wiki is outdated)
b) retail feature #1
c) retail feature #2
d) business feature #1
3. A user financially supports the feature the user wants to be implemented.
Regarding, the ''donate'' button in Bicoin-Qt: how can the retail users be sure the money will not be spent on developing the business features?
They don't. But then again, if there is no trust in the first place, the whole exercise is pointless.I think most of the developers prefer to be hired by companies such as Bitpay.
In future this might be a problem.
At the moment a single business like Bitpay has the necessary resources (cash + access to developers) to convince the devs to program in Bitcoin-Qt's the features the business users want. These features may not be what retail users want.
To have a balance between the business users' interests and the retail users' interests it would be advisable to have a tool (a feature request auction site) through which the retail users could finance the developers as well.
Regarding, the ''donate'' button in Bicoin-Qt: how can the retail users be sure the money will not be spent on developing the business features?
Such a button will not give the users even the slightest power over the direction of Bitcoin-Qt's development, so it will not be frequently used = developers will continue to be underpaid, and Bitcoin-Qt's development will be slow.
I don't think that is necessarily true. Users already have "the slightest power" over the direction of Bitcoin-Qt's development by submitting issues on github.The main problem is that no one is picking them up, as no one is paid to do it. Giving a few fanatic developers a reliable income may be more constructive than having them chase after per-issue funding.
I appreciate your having discussed the idea with others.
I think most of the developers prefer to be hired by companies such as Bitpay. As I've noticed myself as well, dealing with the bitcoin community at large is difficult at best, and sob story at worst*, a company provides a more reliable income stream. It does make development less decentralized, and means that end-user issues with the UI (for example) will not get priority, as companies such as Bitpay and exchanges offer their own front-ends.
* I've had to explain to people that open source does not equal "developers do your work for free" so many times that it drives me crazy...
Yes. They don't like it. Anything with feature-specific funding is off the table, because it would result in rushed code and less sexy issues and testing receiving no attention.
It's a pity developers think this way. If they are afraid of less sexy features being left out they might simply put a low price on these less sexy features or even develop those less sexy features for free (as they are doing now). As for the rushed / low quality code - I think when paid, they would pay special attention to the quality of their work.
A "donate to client development" button in the client itself is being considered.
Such a button will not give the users even the slightest power over the direction of Bitcoin-Qt's development, so it will not be frequently used = developers will continue to be underpaid, and Bitcoin-Qt's development will be slow.
I appreciate your having discussed the idea with others.
Thanks
John, did you have time to discuss this idea with other developers?
Yes. They don't like it. Anything with feature-specific funding is off the table, because it would result in rushed code and less sexy issues and testing receiving no attention.A "donate to client development" button in the client itself is being considered.
Sad but true! Iv tried to explain it to so many of my friends and they just look at me with a derp face
Andy B
Andy B
Yes, the basic idea sounds fair.
Before embarking on a project the requirements should be really clear to the developer and everyone contributing money to it should agree on them (to prevent disagreements later on). I also think an important requirement is to perform the work in the open, so that people can see what is happening and keep true to the open source spirit.
A % of the money should probably be held in escrow until the feature is fully integrated and reviewed in the context of safety. Payout schedule should at least be discussed beforehand.
John, did you have time to discuss this idea with other developers?
Agreed, Bitcoin will be a true success the day my grandparents are using it on their own accord.
Its quite easy to do this, but it requires some big picture thinking.
Forget all about the technical elements of bitcoin, and lets work with the end result.
People use new stuff because its either a legal requirement, or its easier than the old way. Sometimes its because it makes their ego feel good, but generally, its to give them something they couldn't do before.
Why would you want to use bitcoin rather than Paypal?
The only reason I can think of is because its cheaper.
Here is a possible dialogue which demonstrates why we have a long way to go! We need a far better reason to use bitcoins!
Muggle: So, how would you do bitcoin rather than Paypal?
Geek: Ok, visit Localbitcoins, and buy $100 worth of bitcoins from some stranger, by giving him your bank account details.
Muggle: I can't get ripped off if I do this, can I?
Geek: You'll probably get around 0.95 worth of bitcoins.
Muggle: Doesn't sound like much for $100!
Geek: Now visit a website that sells stuff for bitcoins, and buy something you want - like a graphic card, or some porn, of maybe some drugs. Sorry, you can't buy nice clothes yet, because bitcoin people wear black t shirts exclusively!
Geek: Type in the address of where you want to send your bitcoins, making sure to match the amount they want with the amount you want to send, but add a little extra 0.01 to cover mining costs (don't ask!)
Forget all about the technical elements of bitcoin, and lets work with the end result.
People use new stuff because its either a legal requirement, or its easier than the old way. Sometimes its because it makes their ego feel good, but generally, its to give them something they couldn't do before.
Why would you want to use bitcoin rather than Paypal?
The only reason I can think of is because its cheaper.
Here is a possible dialogue which demonstrates why we have a long way to go!
We need a far better reason to use bitcoins!Muggle: So, how would you do bitcoin rather than Paypal?
Geek: Ok, visit Localbitcoins, and buy $100 worth of bitcoins from some stranger, by giving him your bank account details.
Muggle: I can't get ripped off if I do this, can I?
Geek: You'll probably get around 0.95 worth of bitcoins.
Muggle: Doesn't sound like much for $100!
Geek: Now visit a website that sells stuff for bitcoins, and buy something you want - like a graphic card, or some porn, of maybe some drugs. Sorry, you can't buy nice clothes yet, because bitcoin people wear black t shirts exclusively!
Geek: Type in the address of where you want to send your bitcoins, making sure to match the amount they want with the amount you want to send, but add a little extra 0.01 to cover mining costs (don't ask!)
Lol, ok and i think this is about as far as the conversation would usually get. I just imagined mentioning mining to someone who has no idea what bitcoin is yet.
One of the big barriers with Bitcoin is that the majority of its users and developers are, to put it bluntly, ignorant computer nerds. They are extremely smart, yet completely ignorant to what the average person is capable of (no offense, its an impairment of social interaction and nothing to be ashamed of!) . Even with a seemingly simple system, like bitcoinATM, it is dependent on the assumption that a user knows what the difference between a public key and a private key is. The general public still finds the basics of this system confusing. There should be a very big priority in ensuring that Grandma knows how to send bitcoins. Wouldn't that be a HUGE step? To be able to say "She can't open a fucking e-mail, but she can send bitcoins!" would be evolution. That's what bitcoin needs to be. This simplification would magnify the potential by 1000 times.
Not sure how this would be done. It will take somebody who is not just technically smart, but extremely creative as well. How can we make bitcoin as simple as pulling out your physical wallet? And don't tell me "there's an iphone app for that!", because Grandma is still rotary dialing.
I believe if you can make it simple enough that even Grandma can use it, then you are opening up some pretty big fucking doors for Bitcoin.
So what's next in the simplification of Bitcoin?
Not sure how this would be done. It will take somebody who is not just technically smart, but extremely creative as well. How can we make bitcoin as simple as pulling out your physical wallet? And don't tell me "there's an iphone app for that!", because Grandma is still rotary dialing.
I believe if you can make it simple enough that even Grandma can use it, then you are opening up some pretty big fucking doors for Bitcoin.
So what's next in the simplification of Bitcoin?
ignorant (Adjective)
Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
I think you mean arrogant
arrogant (Adjective)
Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
Be honest to yourself as to whether your grandma really needs to use Bitcoin. The one who should be using them is you.
BitcoinMoxy.com
BitcoinMoxy.com
One of the big barriers with Bitcoin is that the majority of its users and developers are, to put it bluntly, ignorant computer nerds. They are extremely smart, yet completely ignorant to what the average person is capable of (no offense, its an impairment of social interaction and nothing to be ashamed of!) . Even with a seemingly simple system, like bitcoinATM, it is dependent on the assumption that a user knows what the difference between a public key and a private key is. The general public still finds the basics of this system confusing. There should be a very big priority in ensuring that Grandma knows how to send bitcoins. Wouldn't that be a HUGE step? To be able to say "She can't open a fucking e-mail, but she can send bitcoins!" would be evolution. That's what bitcoin needs to be. This simplification would magnify the potential by 1000 times.
Not sure how this would be done. It will take somebody who is not just technically smart, but extremely creative as well. How can we make bitcoin as simple as pulling out your physical wallet? And don't tell me "there's an iphone app for that!", because Grandma is still rotary dialing.
I believe if you can make it simple enough that even Grandma can use it, then you are opening up some pretty big fucking doors for Bitcoin.
So what's next in the simplification of Bitcoin?
Not sure how this would be done. It will take somebody who is not just technically smart, but extremely creative as well. How can we make bitcoin as simple as pulling out your physical wallet? And don't tell me "there's an iphone app for that!", because Grandma is still rotary dialing.
I believe if you can make it simple enough that even Grandma can use it, then you are opening up some pretty big fucking doors for Bitcoin.
So what's next in the simplification of Bitcoin?
SO Fing Right, Engineers have a HORRIBLE snobbery and disdain for User interface and Marketing that blinds them and cripples their designs, the whole history of the Personal Computer is the history of good interface beating the snot out of technically superior stuff and it always will but the average engineer just never 'gets it' as to why they keep losing.
I was just having a conversation yesterday with a prominent BTC developer who said the Address Book should be removed from the client because it encouraged people to reuse addresses and that was bad for security. Typical engineer thinking, users should jump through MORE not less hoops that us elite users know and care about and if they won't then they will be FORCED to do so by removing any alternative. With that kind of attitude e-mail would never have succeeded.
This can be a first step. We'd need to do something about the addressing. DNSSEC / PKI / SSL Certs is being talked about as potential solutions.
That's really cool. I want one.
This can be a first step. We'd need to do something about the addressing. DNSSEC / PKI / SSL Certs is being talked about as potential solutions.
You reach a point where you fundamentally can't make things any simpler without compromising security. This applies to bitcoin just as much as physical possessions.
When securing physical possessions, people DO put up with lots of inconvenience and complexity, so it's unrealistic to expect bitcoin to become both ultra-simple and ultra-secure.
A hardware wallet that works a bit like an online banking security token is probably as simple as it gets.
Even 'stupid' people have learned how to use security tokens so why can't they learn to use hardware wallets?
When securing physical possessions, people DO put up with lots of inconvenience and complexity, so it's unrealistic to expect bitcoin to become both ultra-simple and ultra-secure.
A hardware wallet that works a bit like an online banking security token is probably as simple as it gets.
Even 'stupid' people have learned how to use security tokens so why can't they learn to use hardware wallets?
Jump to: