# Suggestions for the White paper document

**URL:** <https://bisq.community/t/suggestions-for-the-white-paper-document/588>\
**Category:** Development\
**Created:** [September 1, 2016, 10:13am UTC](https://bisq.community/t/suggestions-for-the-white-paper-document/588 "2016-09-01T10:13:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BitConcerned](https://bisq.community/letter_avatar/bitconcerned/32/6_22734026db12803ebb3e059622ac3534.png) [@BitConcerned](https://bisq.community/u/BitConcerned)\
**Post date:** [September 1, 2016, 10:13am UTC](https://bisq.community/t/suggestions-for-the-white-paper-document/588/1 "2016-09-01T10:13:27Z")

</div>

As written in the white paper document the references to ‘Alice’ and ‘Bob’ just serve to ‘muddy the water’ and make things _way_ more difficult to follow than they need to be.

I know it seems to be the ‘thing’ to do when it comes to public key cryptography ever since the days of Phil Zimmerman PGP wikis and guides, but here it just makes the doc look kinda childish and unprofessional IMHO.

As ALL transactions with bitsquare involve Bitcoin, then there are two parties, the buyer and the seller (arbiter aside). The seller is ALWAYS the one with the Bitcoin to sell. The buyer is the one with the fiat currency / altcoin.

I suggest using ‘buyer’, ‘seller’, as appropriate. Alice and Bob should get a room. 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![coinstash](https://bisq.community/user_avatar/bisq.community/coinstash/32/213_2.png) [@coinstash](https://bisq.community/u/coinstash)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2016, 6:48am UTC](https://bisq.community/t/suggestions-for-the-white-paper-document/588/2 "2016-09-25T06:48:36Z")

</div>

With Ted and Carol?