Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <etotheipi@gmail.com>) id 1WO9tX-0008Bd-3S
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:58:15 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.41 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.41; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qa0-f41.google.com; 
Received: from mail-qa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.216.41])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WO9tV-0003rs-V2
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:58:15 +0000
Received: by mail-qa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id j5so1399521qaq.28
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.224.45.197 with SMTP id g5mr4213133qaf.52.1394733488489;
	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (c-76-111-96-126.hsd1.md.comcast.net.
	[76.111.96.126])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t5sm4257067qge.0.2014.03.13.10.58.06
	for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5321F1AD.9020609@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:58:05 -0400
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
References: <CAKaEYhK4oXH3hB7uS3=AEkA6r0VB5OYyTua+LOP18rq+rYajHg@mail.gmail.com>	<52852C2D.9020103@gmail.com>	<52853D8A.6010501@monetize.io>	<CAJHLa0M6CkoDbD6FFixf9-mmhug7DvehSWCJ+EHWVxUDuwNiBg@mail.gmail.com>	<EE02A310-8604-4811-B2D0-FC32C72C20F3@grabhive.com>	<CAJHLa0OMcTCgGESi-F4jT2NA3FyCeMYbD_52j47t3keEYBfK8g@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+s+GJBSGPBQWWYR1NYSc2E4Y1BWAn8zf7xsu4wQ1O8cA8OWbw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJHLa0NEEppHg_Lmi_Oxnz_gPSHZPfQpeg+-8MrvFYDmdM83-g@mail.gmail.com>	<CANEZrP2O4hDBiCNvO1oV5X7OtnQ4xVDD=RtozQY8ESRHgXQu9w@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJHLa0PB-V+KgEr5uCj+mceESggp8G4MmLGHHpz2UD_R_w-zfQ@mail.gmail.com>	<5321D95C.2070402@gmail.com>	<CAJHLa0MrLGDVO7LFpUSb+LCxNjKebQQ7UHSwyWPYwzWw5WcbAw@mail.gmail.com>	<5321E87B.8050908@monetize.io>	<CANEZrP1v01LtSLF5FGEGprT2XZhryzC8QkvDrbFUv1Px1VgHoQ@mail.gmail.com>	<5321EC89.6020300@gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP3cw6VV7YMsr1+TvKEws_rHRyS=DMxZiMcaHKBb_QZxmg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3cw6VV7YMsr1+TvKEws_rHRyS=DMxZiMcaHKBb_QZxmg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------010000090004090900090809"
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(etotheipi[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WO9tV-0003rs-V2
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] moving the default display to mbtc
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:58:15 -0000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010000090004090900090809
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



On 03/13/2014 01:51 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
>     Well it looks like the consensus is to do it, instead of talking
>     about it.  I'm going to make sure we get uBTC into the next Armory
>     release.
>
>
> Hmm - be careful with the word "consensus" here. A bunch of people on
> a mailing list does not make consensus ;)
>
> If you survey other wallets, you'll find most already switched to
> mBTC, that it took some effort to do so (look at the size of the
> patches for instance) and that probably, nobody is super-keen to
> change again so soon. So uBTC would make you different to most of the
> other wallets and services in wide usage. 
>
> If Armory wants to do that, that's no problem, maybe it will be a
> competitive advantage - just saying, don't quote this thread as
> indicating some kind of community consensus.
>
> Wallets and services that are using mBTC (that I know of)
>
> blockchain.info <http://blockchain.info>
> MultiBit
> Bitcoin Wallet (Android)
> Hive
> Bitcoinity
> KnC Wallet (defaults to BTC but can be switched to mBTC in settings,
> uBTC not an option)
> Mullvad
> btcstore.eu <http://btcstore.eu>
>
> Doing a google search for [bitcoin "mBTC"] and [bitcoin "uBTC"], the
> former has a bunch of sites and services with prices in mBTC. The
> latter only has faucets, as far as I can tell, which sort of makes sense.

I actually was not aware that so many had already switched to mBTC.   I
guess it shows how much I use other wallets. 

You misunderstood my "consensus" comment.   I was simply stating the
"consensus" of debating on the mailing list endlessly is not as
effective as doing it.  Thus I was just going to do it and see who
follows.  But that also assumed there was not a critical mass who'd
already switched -- I must admit I'm not so confident anymore...

I am/so strongly opposed //to mBTC /compared to uBTC, I was ready to
take a small leap of faith (with associated risks), to help push the
"consensus".  Of course it would still remain configurable, but the
default will make a big difference.

-Alan

--------------010000090004090900090809
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/13/2014 01:51 PM, Mike Hearn
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CANEZrP3cw6VV7YMsr1+TvKEws_rHRyS=DMxZiMcaHKBb_QZxmg@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div class="gmail_extra">
          <div class="gmail_quote">
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">Well it looks like
                the consensus is to do it, instead of talking about it. 
                I'm going to make sure we get uBTC into the next Armory
                release.</div>
            </blockquote>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>Hmm - be careful with the word "consensus" here. A
              bunch of people on a mailing list does not make consensus
              ;)</div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>If you survey other wallets, you'll find most already
              switched to mBTC, that it took some effort to do so (look
              at the size of the patches for instance) and that
              probably, nobody is super-keen to change again so soon. So
              uBTC would make you different to most of the other wallets
              and services in wide usage. </div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>If Armory wants to do that, that's no problem, maybe it
              will be a competitive advantage - just saying, don't quote
              this thread as indicating some kind of community
              consensus.</div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>Wallets and services that are using mBTC (that I know
              of)</div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://blockchain.info">blockchain.info</a></div>
            <div>MultiBit</div>
            <div>Bitcoin Wallet (Android)</div>
            <div>Hive</div>
            <div>Bitcoinity</div>
            <div>KnC Wallet (defaults to BTC but can be switched to mBTC
              in settings, uBTC not an option)</div>
            <div>Mullvad</div>
            <div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://btcstore.eu">btcstore.eu</a></div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>Doing a google search for [bitcoin "mBTC"] and [bitcoin
              "uBTC"], the former has a bunch of sites and services with
              prices in mBTC. The latter only has faucets, as far as I
              can tell, which sort of makes sense.</div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    I actually was not aware that so many had already switched to
    mBTC.   I guess it shows how much I use other wallets.  <br>
    <br>
    You misunderstood my "consensus" comment.   I was simply stating the
    "consensus" of debating on the mailing list endlessly is not as
    effective as doing it.  Thus I was just going to do it and see who
    follows.  But that also assumed there was not a critical mass who'd
    already switched -- I must admit I'm not so confident anymore...<br>
    <br>
    I am<i> so strongly opposed </i><i>to mBTC </i>compared to uBTC, I
    was ready to take a small leap of faith (with associated risks), to
    help push the "consensus".  Of course it would still remain
    configurable, but the default will make a big difference.<br>
    <br>
    -Alan<br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------010000090004090900090809--