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 <nanotube@gmail.com>) id 1Vh7Q9-00053m-31
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:38:01 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.44; envelope-from=nanotube@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qa0-f44.google.com; 
Received: from mail-qa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.216.44])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Vh7Q7-0006BL-4v
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:38:01 +0000
Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id f11so165670qae.17
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:37:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.224.80.4 with SMTP id r4mr6518108qak.69.1384475873693;
	Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:37:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (c-50-166-61-61.hsd1.nj.comcast.net.
	[50.166.61.61])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p17sm1129557qak.4.2013.11.14.16.37.52
	for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:37:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52856CC7.5050103@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:37:27 -0500
From: Daniel F <nanotube@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>, 
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <CAKaEYhK4oXH3hB7uS3=AEkA6r0VB5OYyTua+LOP18rq+rYajHg@mail.gmail.com>	<CANAnSg3zWdyGymJ2tE5RUQsCSqh4jw7pkb619tX0nVoi-9efgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0MhfLarZ09Aajd-9_HVYTD=TxgLxcshr-xNHUb1XbOpSw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0MhfLarZ09Aajd-9_HVYTD=TxgLxcshr-xNHUb1XbOpSw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(nanotube[at]gmail.com)
	-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: 1Vh7Q7-0006BL-4v
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, 15 Nov 2013 00:38:01 -0000

> This is a decentralized currency, and we should avoid centralizing
> decisions.  This is something that impacts the community at large, and
> deserves input and discussion at every level.
> 
> I would suggest posting on all possible forums "proposal: switch to
> uBTC, labelled as ISO prefers (XBT?)" and see what sort of discussion
> is generated.  If the support is broad, it will be plain from the
> responses if there is a consensus.  Perhaps everyone will agree it is
> the best course, and we can make an easy change.
> 
> But we need less "core dev fiat" not more :)
> 
this seems like such a paint-the-bikeshed problem that it's sure to
generate vast volumes of discussion, waste a lot of people's time, and
all for only a dubious (imo) gain. (case in point - here i am
contributing to it :) ).

i agree that we should avoid centralizing this. i'll go a step further
and note that the client already has a dropdown allowing individuals to
choose units. merchants are free to choose to price in different units.
exchanges are free to denominate trade in different units.

i suggest we just let the market do its thing and not get into trying to
'make a decision' of any sort.