Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WOTdq-0006G1-6W for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:03:22 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender) client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org; Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1WOTdo-0007Xq-Fd for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:03:22 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WOTde-0000qh-59 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:03:10 +0100 Received: from f052017201.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.52.17.201]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:03:10 +0100 Received: from andreas by f052017201.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:03:10 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:02:59 +0100 Message-ID: References: <52852C2D.9020103@gmail.com> <52853D8A.6010501@monetize.io> <362072F0-1EA8-4474-AE26-4691C852A22C@bitsofproof.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: f052017201.adsl.alicedsl.de User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) 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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 1.1 DKIM_ADSP_ALL No valid author signature, domain signs all mail -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1WOTdo-0007Xq-Fd 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:03:22 -0000 By that definition 3.56 is a price. Maybe I misunderstood you and you're lobbying for mBTC? On 03/14/2014 03:57 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote: > you miss the point Andreas. It is not about the magnitude but about > the form of a price. > > A number with no decimals or with two decimals is percieved as a > price in some currency. > > A number with more than two decimals is just not percieved as a price > but as a geeky something that you rather convert to local currency. > > Tamas Blummer > Bits of Proof > > On 14.03.2014, at 15:49, Andreas Schildbach > wrote: > >> How much do you pay for an Espresso in your local currency? >> >> At least for the Euro and the Dollar, mBTC 3.56 is very close to what >> people would expect. Certainly more familiar than µBTC 3558 or BTC >> 0.003578. >> >> Anyway, I was just sharing real-world experience: nobody is confused. >> >> >> On 03/14/2014 03:14 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote: >>> You give them a hard to interpret thing like mBTC and then wonder >>> why they rather look at local currency. Because the choices you >>> gave them are bad. >>> >>> I think Bitcoin would have a better chance to be percieved as a >>> currency of its own if it had prices and fractions like currencies >>> do. >>> >>> 3.558 mBTC or 0.003578 BTC will never be as accepted as 3558 bits >>> would be. >>> >>> >>> Tamas Blummer Bits of Proof >>> >>> On 14.03.2014, at 15:05, Andreas Schildbach >> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> btw. None of Bitcoin Wallet's users complained about confusion >>>> because of the mBTC switch. In contrast, I get many mails and >>>> questions if exchange rates happen to differ by >10%. >>>> >>>> I suspect nobody looks at the Bitcoin price. It's the amount in >>>> local currency that matters to the users. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 03/13/2014 02:40 PM, Andreas Schildbach wrote: >>>>> Indeed. And users were crying for mBTC. Nobody was asking for >>>>> µBTC. >>>>> >>>>> I must admit I was not aware if this thread. I just watched >>>>> other wallets and at some point decided its time to switch to >>>>> mBTC. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 03/13/2014 02:31 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: >>>>>> The standard has become mBTC and that's what was adopted. >>>>>> It's too late to try and sway this on a mailing list thread >>>>>> now. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Gary Rowe >>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The MultiBit HD view is that this is a locale-sensitive >>>>>> presentation issue. As a result we offer a simple >>>>>> configuration panel giving pretty much every possible >>>>>> combination: icon, m+icon, μ+icon, BTC, mBTC, μBTC, XBT, >>>>>> mXBT, μXBT, sat along with settings for leading/trailing >>>>>> symbol, commas, spaces and points. This allows anyone to >>>>>> customise to meet their own needs beyond the offered default. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We apply the NIST guidelines for representation of SI unit >>>>>> symbols (i.e no conversion to native language, no RTL giving >>>>>> icon+m etc). >>>>>> >>>>>> Right now MultiBit HD is configured to use m+icon taken from >>>>>> the Font Awesome icon set. However reading earlier posts it >>>>>> seems that μ+icon is more sensible. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let us know what you'd like. >>>>>> >>>>>> Links: m+icon screenshot: http://imgur.com/a/WCDoG Font >>>>>> Awesome icon: >>>>>> http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/icon/btc/ NIST SI >>>>>> guidelines: http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec07.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 13 March 2014 12:56, Jeff Garzik >>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Resurrecting this topic. Bitcoin Wallet moved to mBTC >>>>>> several weeks ago, which was disappointing -- it sounded like >>>>>> the consensus was uBTC, and moving to uBTC later --which will >>>>>> happen-- may result in additional user confusion, thanks to >>>>>> yet another decimal place transition.