Title needs editing; crypto != cryptocurrency.
In this context, crypto = cryptocurrency, because MasterCard is a major fintech company. The context is obvious.
Don't die on the crypto != cryptocurrency hill. Its not worth it. Language is fluid and words represent concepts that change over time. We use contextual information to solidify the concepts.
There is nothing special about cryptography that owns the word. Cryptozoology and Cryptosporidium are also valid candidates for using the short form.
HN is largely a technical site so using the technically correct language is meaningful. Chemists often joke about that all foods are "organic" foods, but this is a deliberate joke about two technical terms for the word "organic". In both contexts using the correct is important.
Language of course evolves, but it always evolves with this tensions between changing use and consistent use. The argument that one should just lay down and let words mean anything is silly.
> We use contextual information to solidify the concepts.
In this context both meanings of the word "crypto" make perfect sense to me. It's quite possible (and imho more interesting) that MasterCard is interesting in having more advanced cryptographic capabilities as it is for MasterCard to expand its use of cryptocurrencies. I would read an article about the former and am not interested in the latter.
Who cares what you're interested in. Skim the first paragraph and move on.
It’s fine to call cryptocurrencies “crypto”. It’s less fine to be unnecessarily ambiguous and create confusion when either might be relevant. If not for this discussion, I had assumed the article would be about them acquiring an HSM vendor or someone else in the cryptography space.
Admittedly this is the original title. But it’s an ambiguous and confusing title.
Its the proper use of the word in one, two or even three contexts. If you're not interested in it, you'll find out from the subtitle or the first paragraph and move on.
I, for one, was confused while taking the context into account (but having no idea what CipherTrace does): fintech companies, and especially those dealing with bank cards, are among the most common examples of encryption and authentication usage; I think it's even common to say "that's how your bank card transfers are secured" when explaining the usage of asymmetric cryptography to laypeople. Though the possibilities I've imagined were rather silly: e.g., some custom cryptographic hardware, for either efficiency or doing something fancy with quantum cryptography. Upon skimming the article, I'm not sure if the reality is much less silly, but the brief confusion happened either way.
I accept that "crypto" nowadays mainly means "cryptocurrency"; and that I will have to learn to sound-out "cryptography" in full.
What I meant, using that terse notation, was that crypto is not identical with cryptocurrency.
It's to the point where we need to start labeling cryptography as such. Crypto now means cryptocurrency because the crypto folks like to shorten it in every conversation.
A language (and its people) gets to vote for the use of a word based on the heuristic of popularity. It's something that has been going on for some time now.
That's unlikely. Before cryptocurrencies, "crypto" generally meant cryptography. The term "crypto" now refers to cryptocurrencies almost 100% of the time.
I consider crypto to only refer to cryptocurrency in an informal, non-technical context, or in the middle of a paragraph talking about cryptocurrencies. On HN I kind of expect crypto to refer to cryptography with the amount of programming and computer science posts that get discussed here