Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <jgarzik@bitpay.com>) id 1WO5xl-0005Qd-OY
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:46:21 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.172; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f172.google.com; 
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1WO5xk-0002Oj-Qy
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:46:21 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hi5so3917539wib.5
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=H7uciALrDI5DzukrCI8x/wu7jXot7M3VkQ2tyziv3AA=;
	b=L+xPLJU5VIutogosSQUAHYL6oyGaOB+yRM2zNikIVAMQtYblKdcskyj+E3qIndSL62
	n9bCZX2DcrZnDjKhE63Wc/zGlYR8DAQroGiAJ/+pEaJhUah+IQE97bHZwW01bssI7V4i
	H6qARyLHMq38ewQ8mI0fGftjtUkk8NsFTwUPO6A6FAaHxkPcZiIy7PYObaxKugm1oZQD
	JKELT9HJCc14Pqp2Th8xUyrrBUnCPE9Son4RxH2vOnhRKo2S0RRqqT3wFrxL8u6+YiY8
	LWmHsPSv9Dc0IImF46Cx2T5G/0Avblayn+6glVTLb54zrP+Nsu6barN3ka8ghsHTX0A9
	/nZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnxxulXdWSfTtNcPciviM5yTNRvF0D//SfPYQo8Sk9CXDmHW+BrLmb6xTLK62jRTE2AbIA2
X-Received: by 10.194.157.41 with SMTP id wj9mr1892000wjb.34.1394718374663;
	Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.82.197 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 06:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+s+GJBSGPBQWWYR1NYSc2E4Y1BWAn8zf7xsu4wQ1O8cA8OWbw@mail.gmail.com>
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>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 09:45:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0NEEppHg_Lmi_Oxnz_gPSHZPfQpeg+-8MrvFYDmdM83-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-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: 1WO5xk-0002Oj-Qy
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Wendell <w@grabhive.com>
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 13:46:21 -0000

<vendor hat: on>

Based on this seeming consensus, BitPay was headed towards uBTC
internally, and hoped to coordinate messaging and rollout with others
in the community.  Ah well, proceed apace, and Bitcoin Wallet will
catch up, I suppose.

Multiple unit changes negatively impact users, but we are already there :/


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> 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.
>
>
> I've kind of given up getting any consensus about this, or even getting
> people to care.
>
> Everyone agrees that a decimal shift would be good, but it's the same boring
> shed painting discussion every time on how many decimals. In the end nothing
> happens.
>
> I can't really blame Andreas for finally taking action and making the change
> to mBTC. People in the community are familiar with mBTC because some
> exchanges and price sites used mBTC (at least for a while when >$1000), also
> mBTC seems to be catching on on reddit etc.
>
> Moving to muBTC (which in itself would be better because it is the final
> unit change ever needed without hardfork) would require more coordinated
> education effort.
>
> Wladimir



-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/