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
|
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 <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1RrwjD-0002V0-Fn
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:17:23 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RrwjC-00046b-KT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:17:23 +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 1282B560718;
Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:17:13 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Gary Rowe <g.rowe@froot.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:17:03 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.5-gentoo; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAKm8k+1VFYSt7115KKGy5C7orFoU-N=8vfkQ_sc8onfQq96_Ww@mail.gmail.com>
<201201301356.16032.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAKm8k+2JcZ++N76HOd+Obr1DR3gG9e+U-gVCHYyN_Eo-4+ciZw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKm8k+2JcZ++N76HOd+Obr1DR3gG9e+U-gVCHYyN_Eo-4+ciZw@mail.gmail.com>
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: <201201301417.05584.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: 1RrwjC-00046b-KT
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
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: <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: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:17:23 -0000
On Monday, January 30, 2012 2:13:52 PM Gary Rowe wrote:
> Having closely read the BIP20 proposal, I can see your point. As I see it,
> BIP 20 vs BIP 21 is about standardising on a representation of the "amount"
> field. BIP 20 proposes that "amount" can contain alternative
> representations, clearly defined, whereas BIP 21 requires the use of a
> single representation in decimal notation.
>
> In my view, BIP 21 still wins since it reduces complexity for the end
> client both at the human and machine level.
If the goal is to reduce complexity, strtol-compatible amount is the answer ;)
|
