Quote from: franky1 on March 03, 2016, 03:13:55 PM

Quote from: shorena on March 03, 2016, 02:57:09 PM

There is no shame in having to ask or to ask first instead of trying the manual or docs. I dont think the patch notes could have been clearer, but since you think otherwise maybe we can take this as an example how they could be improved?

i too like to research, but im finding it more and more apparent that i am being asked by others about what this means and what that means.

put it this way do people ask "how does an iphone work" or do they just try it and see... because even though there is code behind it. its done without using buzzwords. that have no laymen meaning when communicating its usefulness away from the sourcecode.
EG does UTXO (saving typing just 3 less keys on a keyboard) really make things better. "unspents" just makes more sense.

Probably, yes at least depending on the one you talk to.

Quote from: franky1 on March 03, 2016, 03:13:55 PM

there is ultimately no reason in any way possible that the word UTXO should have any preference when used in public bitcoin communications

Well, its a grown term and it grew from those very familiar with bitcoin. We might need new terms over time, I agree, but I dont think patch notes are the right place to introduce them.

Quote from: franky1 on March 03, 2016, 03:13:55 PM

bitcoin core can have real complex code but then make very simple explanations to bring it down to laymens prospective. i have spent the last 2 years atleast translating code into laymens and it is starting to get apparent that although core pretends to want decentralization and pretends to add features to make more available to the majority, but always fails in the description and details to gain that growth

EG my background is in the coding of adding comments and also having separate documentation for pseudocode and procedure charts to bring the code down to a level anyone can grasp. including case-scenarios and analogies

i have asked a few of the dev coders, aswell as some of the famous youtubers who like to simplify bitcoin and even a few in the bitcoin foundation to do something about opening up bitcoins understanding to the masses. yet even now bitcoin core seems to want to remain as the closed off centre of bitcoin that does not want to share or be part of the community.

I have to assume here, because I didnt talk to anyone about this, but I would assume that its not that they dont want the results. Doing this kind of work sounds like something coders hate. Many coders I know claim their code can be read without comments, docs or all that other "nonsense". They of course fail to see that someone might not be able to read the code if they are not familiar with that language or at least a variety of other languages. Im pretty sure though that any project (be that core, classic or any of the others forks) would gladly welcome results.

Quote from: franky1 on March 03, 2016, 03:13:55 PM

its got nothing to to with my lack of understanding or research and more so about the general public endlessly asking questions.

blockstream aka bitcoin core really need to work on their communications, because even their number one fan, Lauda seems to have failed to grasp it

I dont think this is limited to any specific project within bitcoin. I have to say the patch notes for classic 0.11.2 are simple[1], but there is also nothing overly complex to pitch. The roadmap on the other hand is very vague[2] and I am e.g. not sure what "Software based on Bitcoin Core implementation 0.11.2 and 0.12.0." should tell me. There is no information about which parts are picked and which are not, e.g. does classic include pruning?

Yes, I agree cores patch notes could have been easier. Patch notes in 'simple language' might be a good idea (for any project), but unless someone volunteers to do the work I dont think it will happen.

[1] https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic#what-is-bitcoin
[2] https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md