Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RrwP2-0001Xz-GK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:56:32 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1RrwP1-0007fs-Qi for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:56:32 +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 BD1DE560718; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:56:23 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:56:14 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.5-gentoo; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: 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-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201201301356.16032.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 -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RrwP1-0007fs-Qi Cc: Gary Rowe Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 21 (modification BIP 20) 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: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:56:32 -0000 On Monday, January 30, 2012 1:50:03 PM Gary Rowe wrote: > Speaking on behalf of the MultiBit team (Jim's currently on holiday), we > will not be supporting Tonal Bitcoins anytime soon. Therefore we back the > BIP 21 proposal. It is not correct to imply that BIP 20 requires Tonal Bitcoin support. In fact, the exact opposite is true; it states that even if one unit (eg, TBC) would be a more rational way to display a specified amount, clients should still interpret it in the way that is deemed to be most intuitive to the user (eg, BTC).