Unfortunately language isn't a static thing and is somewhat defined by the dominant usage of something over time (unless you're in the rare country that has fully prescriptive language). I had been using crypto as shorthand for cryptography for a long time but cryptocurrency quickly subsumed that. If I talk to any of my non technical friends, and even technical friends who don't touch cryptography, crypto = cryptocurrency. I think the war is lost here.
The bigger problem is for non-technical users "cryptography" and "cryptocurrency" now sound interchangeable. So now you can't have a conversation about cryptography without explaining how it's distinct from the concept of cryptocurrency and that you're not talking about Bitcoin.
While most people aren't talking to their non-technical friends and family about cryptography too often, the co-opting of "crypto" is problematic for companies. They now have to explain to lay people why a new phone isn't pumping out Bitcoin when it was advertised as having strong cryptography. It's going to also be super problematic when politicians start talking about "crypto" regulation and we're having to fight battles over the legality of cryptography again. I don't think my old RSA-as-one-liner still fits.
There are t-shirts, stickers, pins and mugs with "crypto means cryptography" printed on them. This linguistic squabble is so well established that it has merch. But I can't begrudge publications getting an easy bit of writing out.
This fight is over. You knew it was over the second time you were talking to someone you didn't know well, were about to use the term "crypto", and paused to check in your head how they'd interpret the word. "Crypto" means "cryptocurrency", not "cryptography".
We shouldn't be surprised: there's orders of magnitude more people interested in get-rich-quick schemes than in abstract algebra.
The cryptography engineers will be happier the sooner they let this go and find some new slang for themselves.
The "crypto" part of the word "cryptocurrency" is short for "cryptography".
If instead "crypto" is short for "cryptocurrency", then it would follow that "cryptocurrency" is short for "cryptocurrencycurrency", which is short for "cryptocurrencycurrencycurrency", which is short for "cryptocurrencycurrencycurrencycurrency" etc.
I'm just going to stick with "crypto" being short for "cryptography", with an added mental note that the short form is ambiguous. I guess I just don't have the patience to see an infinite recursion through to the end.
> This fight is over. You knew it was over the second time you were talking to someone you didn't know well, were about to use the term "crypto", and paused to check in your head how they'd interpret the word. "Crypto" means "cryptocurrency", not "cryptography".
Cryptocurrency implementers understand just fine what I mean. I'm speaking about the actual cryptographers and not the people doing get-rich-quick schemes.
For the rest, I consider continuing to use the term crypto and having them get confused means just maybe that will lead to a test of their faith.
I mean, we're on a site called "hacker news." If any non-technical person looks over my shoulder and sees the title of this site, they automatically think cyber criminal website. Because that's what "hacker" means to a majority of people. Heck, even to a lot of technical people.
"Crypto" is going down the same road. Sure, we know the difference. But most people think "Crypto" is Bitcoin. Period.
Yes, and it’s still noteworthy when it happens and still merits responding with countermeasures (like new terms) to ensure the meaning you want can be efficiently communicated without error.
(Except for the the small part of the population that actively resists such efforts in the belief that they’ll have an advantage over others in correctly guessing the intended meaning, or that those that have a harder time don’t matter.)
The underlying issue is hinted at towards the end: "cryptocurrency, on the other hand, is a relatively recent development ... that may or may not survive". It is not just that it is being confused with something else, but that it is being confused with something else which (in the eyes of most people in tech, excluding cryptobros) has exceedingly negative connotations. It would be like having the same personal name as a mass murderer.
I'm not happy with "web3" trampling on the history of the semantic web, but what can we in the minority really do? Probably best to just shrug it off.
At the same time as crypto is in the limelight, I'd rather us not forget the lessons of RDF, triple stores, rich schemas, etc. Semantic models were well positioned just as the Facebook/Google platforms were taking off. The platforms just grew faster with VC and ad money.
If we'd have had a distributed/bittorrent moment for sharing our data outside of platforms, we'd have had messaging and news that worked like email. We were really close.
I am finding this article and the comments here very surprising. Do a large number of people actually believe that the word "crypto" means exclusively "cryptocurrency"? Does anyone believe it means exclusively that?
To me it seems similar to how "auto" as a noun is generally short for "automobile", but most people are aware that other things can also be called "auto". When a camera says it is "auto focus" I cannot imagine that any normal person would assume that phrase has anything to do with automobiles.
It is incredibly common for the same word to have different meanings in different contexts. I personally have literally never had a conversation about cryptocurrency in which any person used the word "crypto" to mean "cryptocurrency", so I am clearly out of this loop. But if people decide to use it that way as slang in a certain context it certainly doesn't change the meaning of related words, or even mean it's impossible to use a different slang meaning in different contexts.
I'd say about 90% of people believe that since they don't know cryptography is a thing. Now if you're talking to people that work in tech it's a different story, and they'd probably accept both definitions.
Yes. A large number of people who are not software engineers or mathematicians currently think "crypto" means "cryptocurrency", and don't know what "cryptography" is or think about it at all in and of itself. They think about cryptocurrency a lot, and call it "crypto".
Since there's no other such comments, I'm just going to chime in & say I'm extremely sympathetic.
This is a classic case of confusion, of two things being mixed together & fused, in terminology, when they are distinct areas. Our languages are, as many commenters point out, flexible & changing. But when that flexibility leads to the distinct & clear becoming mixed & hazy, that is usually a loss.
I hate that the name of a well-respected technical discipline has been appropriated by a community full of scammers and con-men, but sadly I think this battle has been lost a long time ago.
Cryptographers should be happy about the importance cryptography plays in our world instead of being grumpy about how non-technical people use the word.
I personally significantly benefitted from understanding Bitcoin level cryptography, so I can't complain :)
Crypto currencies are highly controversial. Many see the problems with few benefits. Yes, many speculators got rich but they’ve disrupted supply chains, enabled the ransomware revolution, benefit money laundering, and consume insane amounts of energy. We still do not have that killer use case we were all hoping for with decentralized money.
If it makes you feel any better, numismatists and coin collectors are not happy about the coopting of the word “coin” either. For millennia a “coin” was a physical item (usually a metal disk) which served as a medium of exchange in commerce. Coins are typically accepted everywhere within the jurisdiction of the issuing authority, and sometimes even beyond if the coin is minted out of a metal with intrinsic value such as silver. (For example, Spanish silver coins were heavily used in the colonial US for more than two centuries. Europeans lived in North America since 1492 but we never minted our own coins until the 1790s.) Coins can also be used to pay taxes to the issuing government which helped maintain these physical coins as acceptable legal tender even when made from base metals carrying no inherent value.
I’m not a cryptocurrency expert, but from what I know it seems like cryptos don’t have any of these useful properties of money. Hoarding and manipulation by speculators coupled with limited opportunities to transact with them make cryptocoins a poor medium of exchange for most people most of the time. Proliferation of competing “coins” reminds me of the wild west early days of paper money where every local bank was printing their own paper but it probably wouldn’t buy you much in the next town over.
Are coin collectors really annnoyed at bitcoin using the word "coin", like you have personal knowledge that this is a common thing coin collectors are annoyed about? Or you're just hypothesizing it for the sake of argument?
Once when I was giving a presentation about cryptography just as this whole cryptocurrency thing was kicking off, I titled the talk "Crypto!" without thinking twice about it. I was shocked at the extensive turnout. Who knew so many people liked cryptography? But most people left disappointed. :)
[+] [-] Grimm1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giantrobot|4 years ago|reply
While most people aren't talking to their non-technical friends and family about cryptography too often, the co-opting of "crypto" is problematic for companies. They now have to explain to lay people why a new phone isn't pumping out Bitcoin when it was advertised as having strong cryptography. It's going to also be super problematic when politicians start talking about "crypto" regulation and we're having to fight battles over the legality of cryptography again. I don't think my old RSA-as-one-liner still fits.
[+] [-] JohnFen|4 years ago|reply
The question then becomes -- since "crypto" no longer means "cryptography" -- what new shorthand term do we use?
[+] [-] jjice|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|4 years ago|reply
This fight is over. You knew it was over the second time you were talking to someone you didn't know well, were about to use the term "crypto", and paused to check in your head how they'd interpret the word. "Crypto" means "cryptocurrency", not "cryptography".
We shouldn't be surprised: there's orders of magnitude more people interested in get-rich-quick schemes than in abstract algebra.
The cryptography engineers will be happier the sooner they let this go and find some new slang for themselves.
[+] [-] dfxm12|4 years ago|reply
This reminds me of Michael Bolton in Office Space being angry at the musician with the same name.
"Why should I change? He's the one who sucks!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI1NfFExOSo
[+] [-] munch117|4 years ago|reply
If instead "crypto" is short for "cryptocurrency", then it would follow that "cryptocurrency" is short for "cryptocurrencycurrency", which is short for "cryptocurrencycurrencycurrency", which is short for "cryptocurrencycurrencycurrencycurrency" etc.
I'm just going to stick with "crypto" being short for "cryptography", with an added mental note that the short form is ambiguous. I guess I just don't have the patience to see an infinite recursion through to the end.
[+] [-] labster|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dwaite|4 years ago|reply
Cryptocurrency implementers understand just fine what I mean. I'm speaking about the actual cryptographers and not the people doing get-rich-quick schemes.
For the rest, I consider continuing to use the term crypto and having them get confused means just maybe that will lead to a test of their faith.
[+] [-] SubiculumCode|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trulyrandom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgotmypw17|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azernik|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mig39|4 years ago|reply
I mean, we're on a site called "hacker news." If any non-technical person looks over my shoulder and sees the title of this site, they automatically think cyber criminal website. Because that's what "hacker" means to a majority of people. Heck, even to a lot of technical people.
"Crypto" is going down the same road. Sure, we know the difference. But most people think "Crypto" is Bitcoin. Period.
[+] [-] vmception|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toastedwedge|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lordnacho|4 years ago|reply
Languages change over time. Even words like "nice" don't mean what they used to mean.
[+] [-] DonHopkins|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SilasX|4 years ago|reply
(Except for the the small part of the population that actively resists such efforts in the belief that they’ll have an advantage over others in correctly guessing the intended meaning, or that those that have a harder time don’t matter.)
[+] [-] dehrmann|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jgrahamc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NoGravitas|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] criddell|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cblconfederate|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astoor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] echelon|4 years ago|reply
At the same time as crypto is in the limelight, I'd rather us not forget the lessons of RDF, triple stores, rich schemas, etc. Semantic models were well positioned just as the Facebook/Google platforms were taking off. The platforms just grew faster with VC and ad money.
If we'd have had a distributed/bittorrent moment for sharing our data outside of platforms, we'd have had messaging and news that worked like email. We were really close.
I'm sure the pendulum will swing back eventually.
[+] [-] dpryden|4 years ago|reply
To me it seems similar to how "auto" as a noun is generally short for "automobile", but most people are aware that other things can also be called "auto". When a camera says it is "auto focus" I cannot imagine that any normal person would assume that phrase has anything to do with automobiles.
It is incredibly common for the same word to have different meanings in different contexts. I personally have literally never had a conversation about cryptocurrency in which any person used the word "crypto" to mean "cryptocurrency", so I am clearly out of this loop. But if people decide to use it that way as slang in a certain context it certainly doesn't change the meaning of related words, or even mean it's impossible to use a different slang meaning in different contexts.
[+] [-] colinmhayes|4 years ago|reply
I'd say about 90% of people believe that since they don't know cryptography is a thing. Now if you're talking to people that work in tech it's a different story, and they'd probably accept both definitions.
[+] [-] jrochkind1|4 years ago|reply
I see it all the time on my social media feeds.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rektide|4 years ago|reply
This is a classic case of confusion, of two things being mixed together & fused, in terminology, when they are distinct areas. Our languages are, as many commenters point out, flexible & changing. But when that flexibility leads to the distinct & clear becoming mixed & hazy, that is usually a loss.
[+] [-] throwawayboise|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nice_byte|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xiphias2|4 years ago|reply
I personally significantly benefitted from understanding Bitcoin level cryptography, so I can't complain :)
[+] [-] goalieca|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jurassic|4 years ago|reply
I’m not a cryptocurrency expert, but from what I know it seems like cryptos don’t have any of these useful properties of money. Hoarding and manipulation by speculators coupled with limited opportunities to transact with them make cryptocoins a poor medium of exchange for most people most of the time. Proliferation of competing “coins” reminds me of the wild west early days of paper money where every local bank was printing their own paper but it probably wouldn’t buy you much in the next town over.
[+] [-] jrochkind1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beej71|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cblconfederate|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] echelon|4 years ago|reply
I'm using this from now on.
[+] [-] jacquesm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 323|4 years ago|reply
Words can change meaning, like "drone", "literally" and so many others.
[+] [-] bdcravens|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] p4bl0|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicwolff|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hanoz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KKKKkkkk1|4 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.algorand.com/about/from-our-founder