1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1RsGEo-0003qt-DW
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:07:18 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RsGEi-00045z-TJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:07:18 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-164-217.dhcp.embarqhsd.net
[184.4.164.217]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0CF36560727;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:07:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net, Amir Taaki <zgenjix@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:07:00 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.5-gentoo; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; )
References: <1328020046.70720.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1328020046.70720.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583
X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583
X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201201311107.01635.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain -0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RsGEi-00045z-TJ
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 20 Rejected, process for BIP 21N
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: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:07:18 -0000
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:27:26 AM Amir Taaki wrote:
> BIP 20 really has no support among implementations such as Bitcoin-Qt,
> Electrum, MultiBit or Bitcoin-JS.
It does among implementations such as Spesmilo and WalletBuddy, and has for
some time. More importantly, it achieved consensus and Final status before any
objections were made. Final only changes to Superceded. What's the point of a
formal BIP process if that process won't be followed?
> Also BIP 20 is problematic because it is incompatible with about every
> standard on the web. All the HTML, URI and everything uses decimal numbers
> alone. I see no reason for breaking with tradition.
That's not incompatibility, and not true. The standards use hexadecimal
numbers, and I can't even think of a single case off-hand where decimal is
used.
That being said, I'd be fine with a spec that used strtol-compatible satoshis
for amount. This is both simple and forward-compatible.
On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:53:57 AM Gary Rowe wrote:
> Regarding the decimal vs satoshi notation I see a few problems with
> satoshi:
>
> * readability - humans reading the URI would expect it to accurately
> reflect what is being displayed (subject to internationalisation issues)
> For example, amount=1.234 is more human readable than amount=123400000
> (ish)
This is true only for BTC users. While that might be a sensible unit today, it
almost certainly won't be in the future. amount=0.00001 is much worse than
amount=1000 or amount=1x3
> * backwards compatibility - existing software already uses the decimal
> notation
Existing software uses Satoshis internally, and it's generally regarded as a
design flaw that it uses BTC numbers in the JSON-RPC protocol.
> * forwards compatibility - Bitcoin needs to move beyond the satoshi to 20
> dps for some reason, this remains OK within the existing schema, but forces
> decimals into the satoshi scheme
This strikes me as more of "let's test the code earlier rather than later"
than forwards compatibility. The problem is that it's pretty much unanimous
that floating-point should never be used, and without that both
representations will be rounding when there are smaller units available.
|
