From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Gary Rowe <g.rowe@froot.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:17:03 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.5-gentoo; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAKm8k+1VFYSt7115KKGy5C7orFoU-N=8vfkQ_sc8onfQq96_Ww@mail.gmail.com>
	<201201301356.16032.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAKm8k+2JcZ++N76HOd+Obr1DR3gG9e+U-gVCHYyN_Eo-4+ciZw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKm8k+2JcZ++N76HOd+Obr1DR3gG9e+U-gVCHYyN_Eo-4+ciZw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201201301417.05584.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 21 (modification BIP 20)
Precedence: list

On Monday, January 30, 2012 2:13:52 PM Gary Rowe wrote:
> Having closely read the BIP20 proposal, I can see your point. As I see it,
> BIP 20 vs BIP 21 is about standardising on a representation of the "amount"
> field. BIP 20 proposes that "amount" can contain alternative
> representations, clearly defined, whereas BIP 21 requires the use of a
> single representation in decimal notation.
> 
> In my view, BIP 21 still wins since it reduces complexity for the end
> client both at the human and machine level.

If the goal is to reduce complexity, strtol-compatible amount is the answer ;)