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 ) 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 ; 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: <52852C2D.9020103@gmail.com> <52853D8A.6010501@monetize.io> <5321D95C.2070402@gmail.com> <5321E87B.8050908@monetize.io> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:24:25 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Q2q-Jkf4ZXkQ05v4dg_wPCWwV3k Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Mark Friedenbach 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 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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
Using milli- and micro- notation for currency un= its is also not very
well supported. Last time this thread was active, I believe there was a
suggestion to use 1 XBT =3D=3D 1 uBTC.

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.

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!

--001a1135f1b08e05fd04f48039c1--