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
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
|
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 <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
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 <gcbd-bitcoin-development@m.gmane.org>)
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:03:10 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:02:59 +0100
Message-ID: <lfv5ml$vl8$1@ger.gmane.org>
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> <CAKm8k+3J9Po4xQn9LhTQrnrGCvG36-kLCjWPX4kmd-c7h+LujA@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP1VbQPapKJCLcE0+vpK0xac6D6JxRGKdagPVchfZjpUmQ@mail.gmail.com> <lfscfd$3cs$1@ger.gmane.org> <lfv2an$iv3$1@ger.gmane.org> <362072F0-1EA8-4474-AE26-4691C852A22C@bitsofproof.com> <lfv4tm$lpg$1@ger.gmane.org>
<A1A0E432-3E76-429C-AADF-083A0041C34B@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: <A1A0E432-3E76-429C-AADF-083A0041C34B@bitsofproof.com>
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: <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: 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 <andreas@schildbach.de
> <mailto:andreas@schildbach.de>> 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 <andreas@schildbach.de
>>> <mailto:andreas@schildbach.de>>
>>> 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
>>>>>> <g.rowe@froot.co.uk <mailto:g.rowe@froot.co.uk>
>>>>>> <mailto:g.rowe@froot.co.uk>> 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 <jgarzik@bitpay.com
>>>>>> <mailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com>
>>>>>> <mailto: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.
|
