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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1WO9Mt-0006Wh-Gx
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:24:31 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.51 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.51; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f51.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.219.51])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WO9Ms-0002fK-NB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:24:31 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id i4so1396183oah.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.73.164 with SMTP id m4mr2471132oev.8.1394731465417; Thu,
13 Mar 2014 10:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.71.231 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5321E87B.8050908@monetize.io>
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>
<5321D95C.2070402@gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0MrLGDVO7LFpUSb+LCxNjKebQQ7UHSwyWPYwzWw5WcbAw@mail.gmail.com>
<5321E87B.8050908@monetize.io>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:24:25 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Q2q-Jkf4ZXkQ05v4dg_wPCWwV3k
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1v01LtSLF5FGEGprT2XZhryzC8QkvDrbFUv1Px1VgHoQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135f1b08e05fd04f48039c1
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1WO9Ms-0002fK-NB
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <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 17:24:31 -0000
--001a1135f1b08e05fd04f48039c1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 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.
Unfortunately I think some people already started using XBT to mean the
same as BTC (another ship that sailed: somehow Bhutan will have to live
with it). So if some software started to redefine it to mean something
else, that seems like a recipe for accidentally sending far too much or too
little money by mistake.
The whole area of symbols, denominations etc is a confusing mess right now,
it opens up the potential for mistakes and makes Bitcoin look
unprofessional. Part of the reason I don't want us to revisit this at the
moment is we need to grab onto any consistency we can get. People want to
think in terms of a single unit. BTC vs mBTC is already bad enough, it'd be
easy to miss the denomination and do some sums wrong. Introducing a third
unit, especially one that skips the intervening nanoBTC, seems like a way
to make mistakes even more common!
--001a1135f1b08e05fd04f48039c1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">Using milli- and micro- notation for currency un=
its is also not very<br>
well supported. Last time this thread was active, I believe there was a<br>
suggestion to use 1 XBT =3D=3D 1 uBTC.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Unfo=
rtunately I think some people already started using XBT to mean the same as=
BTC (another ship that sailed: somehow Bhutan will have to live with it). =
So if some software started to redefine it to mean something else, that see=
ms like a recipe for accidentally sending far too much or too little money =
by mistake.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The whole area of symbols, denominations etc is a confu=
sing mess right now, it opens up the potential for mistakes and makes Bitco=
in look unprofessional. Part of the reason I don't want us to revisit t=
his at the moment is we need to grab onto any consistency we can get. Peopl=
e want to think in terms of a single unit. BTC vs mBTC is already bad enoug=
h, it'd be easy to miss the denomination and do some sums wrong. Introd=
ucing a third unit, especially one that skips the intervening nanoBTC, seem=
s like a way to make mistakes even more common!</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div>
--001a1135f1b08e05fd04f48039c1--
|
