Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WO9MF-0002Xz-TT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:23:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.177; envelope-from=allen.piscitello@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f177.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WO9ME-00005l-QB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:23:51 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id cc10so1473655wib.4 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:23:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.163.206 with SMTP id yk14mr2544203wib.5.1394731424351; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.76.135 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:23:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <52852C2D.9020103@gmail.com> <52853D8A.6010501@monetize.io> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:23:44 -0500 Message-ID: From: Allen Piscitello To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00248c0d79381b12ec04f4803794 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (allen.piscitello[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1WO9ME-00005l-QB Cc: Bitcoin Development 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: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:23:52 -0000 --00248c0d79381b12ec04f4803794 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It certainly is not subjective, in that people are far more used to dealing with whole numbers than decimals. Try reading the first one, then reading the second one. Tell those numbers to someone else, have them write it down, and see how many people screw up the first vs. the second. This has nothing to do with whether it "looks expensive". There are reasons for wanting the numbers to be higher as well, as evidenced by the number of Dogecoin enthusiasts who like "having more", even if it doesn't matter. That part gets more subjective, but still favors micros in most cases. Sure, 3000 may sound like a lot, but if you have a lot more, it's all a different scale. If the argument is for keeping things based on what is already done, why even switch to millis? After all, everyone is used to full Bitcoins, why even change to millis? Whatever your arguments are there, for switching base bitcoins to millis, try to see why they fail at micros (other than the subjective argument that I'm used to decimal units of currency being worth a cup of coffee, even though numerous people all over the world don't have that conditioning). On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Even if a cup of coffee costs 3.12345 mBTC, that's a lot more annoying >> than 3123.45 uBTC. >> > > This is subjective though. To me the first price looks like the price of a > cup of coffee (or I just mentally double it). The second looks like the > price of an expensive holiday. > > If users really find this so terrible, merchants have a simple solution: > do the rounding before presenting the price. Then the price looks like > "3.12 mBTC" which is sort of what I'd expect it to look like. But some > wallets already make digits >2dp smaller so visually you can get precision > whilst still looking similar to what you might expect (this is what Bitcoin > Wallet does). > > >> I haven't seen a single good argument for keeping it in mBTC (other than >> some people already did it). >> > > That's the good argument! > --00248c0d79381b12ec04f4803794 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It certainly is not subjective, in that people are far mor= e used to dealing with whole numbers than decimals. =A0Try reading the firs= t one, then reading the second one. =A0Tell those numbers to someone else, = have them write it down, and see how many people screw up the first vs. the= second. =A0This has nothing to do with whether it "looks expensive&qu= ot;. =A0There are reasons for wanting the numbers to be higher as well, as = evidenced by the number of Dogecoin enthusiasts who like "having more&= quot;, even if it doesn't matter. =A0That part gets more subjective, bu= t still favors micros in most cases. =A0Sure, 3000 may sound like a lot, bu= t if you have a lot more, it's all a different scale.

If the argument is for keeping things based on what is alrea= dy done, why even switch to millis? =A0After all, everyone is used to full = Bitcoins, why even change to millis? =A0Whatever your arguments are there, = for switching base bitcoins to millis, try to see why they fail at micros (= other than the subjective argument that I'm used to decimal units of cu= rrency being worth a cup of coffee, even though numerous people all over th= e world don't have that conditioning).


On Thu,= Mar 13, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:=
Even if a cup o= f coffee costs 3.12345 mBTC, that's a lot more annoying than 3123.45 uB= TC.

This is subjective though. To me the= first price looks like the price of a cup of coffee (or I just mentally do= uble it). The second looks like the price of an expensive holiday.

If users really find this so terrible, merchants have a simp= le solution: do the rounding before presenting the price. Then the price lo= oks like "3.12 mBTC" which is sort of what I'd expect it to l= ook like. But some wallets already make digits >2dp smaller so visually = you can get precision whilst still looking similar to what you might expect= (this is what Bitcoin Wallet does).
=A0
I haven&= #39;t seen a single good argument for keeping it in mBTC (other than some p= eople already did it).

That's the good argument!<= /div>

--00248c0d79381b12ec04f4803794--