Bitcoin pdf spanish translation

[gubatron]

First version of the Bitcoin paper translated to Spanish (Latin American).

Multiple modifications were made on the document after the feedback of several members of #bitcoin-es.

There's still more work to be done, but this is a lot better than taking Spanish readers to the English version of the paper.

Not sure where else to put the pdf for now except at the same level as the bitcoin.pdf, @gavinandresen said to submit the pull request and then he'd move it elsewhere if necessary.

Cheers

[saivann]

Thanks! I should review the content soon (probably tomorrow).

I've thought about adding whitepaper translations before; there's also a few other translations of this whitepaper and someone started a translation team a while ago : https://crowdin.net/project/bitcoin.

In case you are interested, I just checked and I could provide you with a .odt version of the English file, which would allow you to integrate and translate Satoshi's diagrams as well (at least, it works here using LibreOffice).

Regarding the file name and links, perhaps it could be renamed to /bitcoin_es.pdf ?

[saivann]

@gubatron Can you send me the source document used to make the PDF? My email is saivann@gmail.com. It would be useful to keep these documents in a public repository to make it easier for everyone to make additional improvements / add translations. For instance, I'd like to reduce the size of the file and add a link to the original English whitepaper if possible.

[gubatron]

agreed on the comments, if there's some sort of IRC log, the comments should be there already.
Sending you the Google Doc URL so you can have access to the original as I don't know how good the .ODT conversion is. Cheers

We didn't want to name it just /bitcoin_es.pdf, as there might be another translation for Spanish from Spain, which would be the locale bitcoin_es_es.pdf, this from what was talked about (got your point on keeping the comments open)

[gubatron]

Got a copy of Apache's OpenOffice and edited the .odt graphics, translated everything. Managed to catch fix a few translation typos in the process and made sure everything matches layout wise with the look of Satoshi's paper (page numbers, paragraph separations, etc), fixed the attribution at the top like you asked.

[saivann]

The new PDF is excellent. However it seems the PDF in your pull request hasn't been updated, can you replace your commit again?

[gubatron]

hmmm, let me see.

[gubatron]

let me try and replace now

[gubatron]

k looks like now it worked

[gubatron]

let me see if i can get rid of that merge, it was because i tried to push without the -f I think

[gubatron]

perfect!, one commit only, cleaner merge for you.

[saivann]

Thanks for your work on this, the changes should be live in the next 60 minutes.

[gubatron]

@saivann does something else need to happen for the links to be updated on the website?

On
https://bitcoin.org/es/recursos

the link to the white paper still points to the english one.

[saivann]

@gubatron You made the appropriate changes. These links should be updated in the next hour.

[blopaXT]

im learning about the bitcoins, so i started studying the original paper, my native languaje its spanish, my english is not the best, so when i found this translation i tought GREAT, but the translation is not good

in one of the first sentences it says:

"Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. "

then the translation:

"Firmas digitales proveen parte de la solución,
pero los beneficios principales se pierden si existe un tercero confiable para prevenir
el doble-gasto"

la traducción correcta seria:

"Las firmas digitales proveen parte de la solucion, pero los beneficios principales se pierden si todavia se requiere un tercer participante confiable para prevenir el "doble-gasto""

and thats just the second sentence

[saivann]

@gubatron @blopaXT Can you look for improvements together? Or do you think it would be worth linking to the English version again until this is more carefully reviewed?

Edit: You can find the original whitepaper here: https://github.com/saivann/bitcoinwhitepaper

[blopaXT]

i think its better to link to the english version again

[gubatron]

"tercer participante confiable"
"tercero confiable"
"tercero de confianza"

the document was reviewed by lots of people and went through several
rounds, nobody had any issue with that translation of "trusted third
party"...
your translation is actually too verbose and ours is perfectly
understandable.

"i think its better to link to the english version again"
really? ...

If you find something that's structurally flawed in the translation I'm
here for help. It's very hard to do translations in spanish as there are so
many regions and each one uses different words for the same things, this
one is meant for a latin american mix and it included the help of friends
and Venezuelan, Argentinian and Mexican spanish speakers.

Attached the .odt file if you want to fix anything.

http://twitter.com/gubatron

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:16 PM, blopaXT notifications@github.com wrote:

i think its better to link to the english version again

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/303#issuecomment-37115902
.

[blopaXT]

the problem is that in the translation u are saying the following (in spanish):

"Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if there is a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. "

wich is the opossite of the desired meaning

i did not read the full document cause wich such basic mistake at start im pretty sure its full of mistakes

[gubatron]

"se pierden si existe un tercero confiable para prevenirel doble-gasto"

the opposite of?

"se pierden si todavia se requiere un tercer participante confiable para
prevenir el "doble-gasto"

not sure how... but, what do you think about

"se pierden si todavia existe un tercero confiable para prevenirel
doble-gasto"

I think the "todavia" is irrelevant, it clarifies a bit, but it's not the
opposite meaning.

the idea is that you don't need a third party to prevent double spending
right...

blopaXT, my email is gubatron@gmail.com if you want to work together on a
revision of the whole document so we can take the conversation and the
annoying details out of the mailing list.

Cheers!

http://twitter.com/gubatron

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:52 AM, blopaXT notifications@github.com wrote:

the problem is that in the translation u are saying the following:

"Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if there is a trusted third party is still required to
prevent double-spending. "

wich is the opossite of the desired meaning

im from argentina btw, and my translation is correct

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/303#issuecomment-37119856
.