Idk I've always said encryption when talking about cryptography. Also context would matter when discerning the intended meaning of crypto as a coin or crypto as in cryptography.
I think the problem is that blockcain fans mostly don't care about real crypto :) and use "crypto" as a synonym for digital currency.
To me, saying "crypto" means blockchain seems like saying "paper" means book. Sure it is needed, but it is not really the most relevant thing to its function. We surely wouldn't call a pdf "paper" but I think some might call Ripple or even a simple sql database "crypto", and cryptography probably still is used in there to some degree but I think it is very far from the core.
When I first heard “crypto” for “cryptocurrency” I was saddened because it seemed like the meaning was being coopted away from the “real” meaning of “cryptography”. But now, I think we're stuck with it. Words sometimes just have multiple related-but-different meanings. Like how a chemist's "organic" is different from a farmer's "organic". Or, perhaps more saliently to this community, Y Combinator's "hacker" is different from CNN's "hacker".
> Whatever we call it, we still need a use case for full trustless crypto. The reason you find many cryptographers skeptical of Blockchain as a major new technological framework (Internet 3.0!) is that many of us have tried to pitch and develop trustless business models before. And all of the use cases we had in mind have consistently been better served by more centralized, higher-trust alternatives. So we look at Blockchain with a feeling of “we’ve tried this before, and it’s not clear there’s anything sufficiently new to make users want this.”
Is there a reason this argument isn't getting wider airplay? Always felt the same way. Interesting to have it validated by someone who sounds like he's been around the block (pun intended).
It was coined in 1976 as a term meaning "information virus" (akin to gene) something that manages to get itself copied by using its hosts, humans. It still sort of has shades of that meaning in its modern usage, but the original usage was more serious... useful for discussing things like how religions evolve self defense mechanisms.
Nice to see Wikipedia still talks about the old meaning, and uses "internet meme" for the newer meaning.
This reminds me of those insisting that drones are not drones, but quad-copters (what about those with 6 propellers?)
Language is defined by it's usage.
Taken to extreme, I've seen serious linguists argue that if a lot of different background non-native speakers make the same mistake when speaking English, maybe they are right and the native speakers are wrong.
23 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 65.8 ms ] threadIs there a reason this argument isn't getting wider airplay? Always felt the same way. Interesting to have it validated by someone who sounds like he's been around the block (pun intended).
The first time I remember seeing it ten years ago was exactly to describe the modern internet phenomenon.
Nice to see Wikipedia still talks about the old meaning, and uses "internet meme" for the newer meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Language is defined by it's usage.
Taken to extreme, I've seen serious linguists argue that if a lot of different background non-native speakers make the same mistake when speaking English, maybe they are right and the native speakers are wrong.
Unless you want to talk about an „international English“ or so.
But respected native English linguists were arguing that "English does not belong to native speakers"
Crypto in cryptocurrency still stands for cryptographic and by using crypto for cryptocurrency we are making things harder to understand for eveyone.
Of course language evolves, but I think, given the chance, we should make it easier to understand and not harder.
Edit: spelling