Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WO9HX-0003it-UM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:18:59 +0000 Received: from mail-yh0-f43.google.com ([209.85.213.43]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WO9HW-0001ez-L3 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:18:59 +0000 Received: by mail-yh0-f43.google.com with SMTP id b6so1346611yha.2 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:18:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=TfCh85RU0jT754SYVEtx3XvHVRtTfWUpi6u5QX238Eg=; b=lbl5OMk/fKUinizb4zpjFEEbDmTceJPr/X4k8bR7yXMIr30Yu9NjY5eBmDmE1jrXRU P1wVIFRIEKPXwlBznac5pSzRO8JPGOh9amFCu58AukcCxUzFiVMTfXD/R9yxckyOzo6B xI8X5bd2Vcr7xBxjE4FDoRo3JhIcDoNADxp+l0Ewg7qgfslZ5YfwEjhjo2Ac/U8ftqXa XxNZJ6gnwidkuZUeAdIlRcDgNL30085R1pkJ0lIGX95bvGJqkaa4yBMdE4poqF7hIzOA X2N6vR4vyGfSlC//BriiDGwD0E2UmpNFgt3q2T02yQypw1l65J9YS7WOp+7NeieKQq/r 5m5w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkAQxXODsUfkHz1cUN8mmpKutBwe86rIH9RTWA/Un5A9FKI6SR/fIHrYYA2RGiE5o/oqxFx X-Received: by 10.236.89.3 with SMTP id b3mr4168213yhf.54.1394731133152; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.127.149] (adsl-71-131-179-45.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net. [71.131.179.45]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e5sm7921755yhj.14.2014.03.13.10.18.51 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5321E87B.8050908@monetize.io> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:18:51 -0700 From: Mark Friedenbach Organization: Monetize.io Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <52852C2D.9020103@gmail.com> <52853D8A.6010501@monetize.io> <5321D95C.2070402@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1WO9HW-0001ez-L3 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 17:19:00 -0000 This ship may have already sailed, but... Using milli- and micro- notation for currency units is also not very well supported. Last time this thread was active, I believe there was a suggestion to use 1 XBT == 1 uBTC. This would bring us completely within the realm of supported behavior in accounting applications. On 03/13/2014 09:29 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Alan Reiner wrote: >> Of course, as Mike said, this ship may have already sailed, but if >> there's any way to revisit this, I'm there. We're just about to do >> another Armory release and could support this very easily. > > mBTC now just means the issue -will- be revisited in the future. Just > a question of when, not if. > > People and software in various nations handle big numbers for small > values (e.g. Yen) just fine. > People and software do -not- handle extra decimal places well, field > experience shows. > > To roll out QuickBooks support --without converting > any numbers, a key financial attribute-- mBTC is simply insufficient > today, not in the future. > > I also argue that it is a security risk, as follows: To support > accounting packages limited to 2 decimal places, decimal point > conversion must be performed. This produces a situation where your > accounting system shows numbers that do not visually match the numbers > in the bitcoin software. That, in turn, making auditing more > difficult, particularly for outsiders. > > Shipping with mBTC defaults was decidedly unwise, considering that -- > like BTC -- it fails to solve existing, known problems that uBTC can > solve, and considering the inevitable mBTC->uBTC switch. >