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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <eugen@leitl.org>) id 1VhFcx-0003l1-ML
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:23:47 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of leitl.org
designates 164.177.174.8 as permitted sender)
client-ip=164.177.174.8; envelope-from=eugen@leitl.org;
helo=leitl.org;
Received: from v8.ativel.com ([164.177.174.8] helo=leitl.org)
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VhFcv-0000kY-KI
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:23:47 +0000
Received: by leitl.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 219CD540F2A; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:23:39 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:23:39 +0100
From: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <20131115092338.GN5661@leitl.org>
References: <CAKaEYhK4oXH3hB7uS3=AEkA6r0VB5OYyTua+LOP18rq+rYajHg@mail.gmail.com>
<52852C2D.9020103@gmail.com> <52853D8A.6010501@monetize.io>
<CAJHLa0M6CkoDbD6FFixf9-mmhug7DvehSWCJ+EHWVxUDuwNiBg@mail.gmail.com>
<52854F59.9000500@monetize.io> <5285545C.4030607@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5285545C.4030607@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1VhFcv-0000kY-KI
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 09:23:47 -0000
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:53:16PM -0500, Alan Reiner wrote:
> I really like the XBT idea. It makes a lot of sense to match the ISO
I really don't. Just use the SI prefixes.
> currency symbol (though the ISO guys will have to adjust the way they've
> defined the "XBT"). And I do agree that going right to uBTC and
> skipping mBTC makes sense, too.
The display units should be choosable by the user.
> I'd prefer them not be called "micro bitcoins." I really want to call
> them "microbes" ... but I'm not sure that has the right flavor for money
Why on earth?
> transfer :) "Please give me 872 microbes". Perhaps we just call them
> "bits." Or even "micros" or "microbits". As I write this, I realize
> there's probably 872 threads on the forums about this already...
>
> But we would want to promote a consistent term, to avoid further
> confusion when people use different names for the new unit. It's not
> guaranteed to be successful, but if we pick a good name, and build it
> into the interface on the first release pushing the new unit, we have a
> chance to make the transition even easier.
The reason SI prefixes were invented is exactly to preven that case.
|
