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
|
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 <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
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: <CANEZrP3dcWOJGyjNkvjPXAPM16NvG8v80JLUa9N5eTWjSbhkFQ@mail.gmail.com>
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>
<CA+s+GJBSGPBQWWYR1NYSc2E4Y1BWAn8zf7xsu4wQ1O8cA8OWbw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0NEEppHg_Lmi_Oxnz_gPSHZPfQpeg+-8MrvFYDmdM83-g@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2O4hDBiCNvO1oV5X7OtnQ4xVDD=RtozQY8ESRHgXQu9w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0PB-V+KgEr5uCj+mceESggp8G4MmLGHHpz2UD_R_w-zfQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1sJKGP5A82HbUU+v3oTsc5=U5Gq4Z5TrJ4=2FXLZq4yQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKaEYh+Z4J7_xm2+RueV9DCy+MCPmjbkmAYVUjRHEhNa4jf9QQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJfRnm5Q-XvPLBh1iznXZNT+b=wTkhcPoExVUgK8=oL58ahRkQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3dcWOJGyjNkvjPXAPM16NvG8v80JLUa9N5eTWjSbhkFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:23:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJfRnm61i=Ob31V0Bd8LC7xg_j_wyedVMENJZKhpVqykLACMMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: 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 <mike@plan99.net> 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
<div dir=3D"ltr">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.<div>
<br></div><div>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).</div>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu,=
Mar 13, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mail=
to:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>></span> wrote:=
<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div=
class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Even if a cup o=
f coffee costs 3.12345 mBTC, that's a lot more annoying than 3123.45 uB=
TC.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>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.</div>
<div>
<br></div><div>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).</div>
<div class=3D"">
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>I haven&=
#39;t seen a single good argument for keeping it in mBTC (other than some p=
eople already did it).</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>That's the good argument!<=
/div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--00248c0d79381b12ec04f4803794--
|
