Haven't seen any message about this on the mailing list yet, so FYI:
0.9.0rc3 has been tagged.
The significant change compared to rc2 is that the mining code fee policy
now matches relay fee policy.
Also a rare crash in the wallet code was fixed.
There are some further small build system,
Binaries for 0.9.0rc3 are available at:
https://bitcoin.org/bin/0.9.0/test/
Please help sanity test.
We will also need more 'gitian builders' for the final 0.9.0 release
(Wladimir and I are the only builders so far for the rc3 binaries), so if
you are running Linux or OSX and are willing to
Resurrecting this topic. Bitcoin Wallet moved to mBTC several weeks
ago, which was disappointing -- it sounded like the consensus was
uBTC, and moving to uBTC later --which will happen-- may result in
additional user confusion, thanks to yet another decimal place
transition.
On Sun, Nov 17,
The MultiBit HD view is that this is a locale-sensitive presentation issue.
As a result we offer a simple configuration panel giving pretty much every
possible combination: icon, m+icon, μ+icon, BTC, mBTC, μBTC, XBT,
mXBT, μXBT, sat along
with settings for leading/trailing symbol, commas,
The standard has become mBTC and that's what was adopted. It's too late to
try and sway this on a mailing list thread now.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Gary Rowe g.r...@froot.co.uk wrote:
The MultiBit HD view is that this is a locale-sensitive presentation
issue. As a result we offer a
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
Resurrecting this topic. Bitcoin Wallet moved to mBTC several weeks
ago, which was disappointing -- it sounded like the consensus was
uBTC, and moving to uBTC later --which will happen-- may result in
additional user
Indeed. And users were crying for mBTC. Nobody was asking for µBTC.
I must admit I was not aware if this thread. I just watched other
wallets and at some point decided its time to switch to mBTC.
On 03/13/2014 02:31 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
The standard has become mBTC and that's what was
vendor hat: on
Based on this seeming consensus, BitPay was headed towards uBTC
internally, and hoped to coordinate messaging and rollout with others
in the community. Ah well, proceed apace, and Bitcoin Wallet will
catch up, I suppose.
Multiple unit changes negatively impact users, but we are
BitPay should use mBTC as well. Unless you can point to any major wallets,
exchanges or price watching sites that use uBTC by default?
I think it is highly optimistic to assume we'll need another 1000x shift
any time soon. By now Bitcoin isn't obscure anymore. Lots of people have
heard about it.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
BitPay should use mBTC as well. Unless you can point to any major wallets,
exchanges or price watching sites that use uBTC by default?
I think it is highly optimistic to assume we'll need another 1000x shift any
time soon. By
--
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
Graph Databases is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now
Jeff's arguments are understood and supported by those who worked in finance.
Existing financial applications have often problems dealing with more than 2
decimals.
People who work in finance are used to two decimals.
Neither systems nor people in finance have a problem with large numbers
On 03/13/2014 10:32 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
BitPay should use mBTC as well. Unless you can point to any major wallets,
exchanges or price watching sites that use uBTC by default?
I think it is highly optimistic to assume we'll
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 04:50:14PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
Such hand-wavy, data-free logic is precisely why community
coordination is preferred to random apps making random decisions in
this manner.
That ship
cynic hat: on
Every volatility bump messes up expectations of what a bitcoin is worth,
so why are we bikeshedding uBTC vs mBTC? Just be done with it and do mBTC
now, and plan uBTC for just after the next price spike to $10KUSD or whatever,
and then plan on rolling back to mBTC when the price
On 13.03.2014, at 17:14, Alan Reiner etothe...@gmail.com wrote:
We've been working with Marty Zigman who's creating a Bitcoin plugin for
NetSuite accounting platform, and he was already forced to switch
micro-BTC long ago for exactly the reasons described above. I think the
system will
BTW, its not like this would be the first time this was raised, instead the
ship left while ignoring arguments.
The idea of is up there for votes since March 2013
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149150.0
and received the most votes.
I remembered this last time on this list here:
On 13 March 2014 16:50, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
Such hand-wavy, data-free logic is precisely why community
coordination is preferred to random apps making random decisions in
this manner.
That ship sailed
Mike is making an assumption that is not necessary, which is the price of
the most commonly used unit should be between is $.50 and $1000. The issue
to revisit or not shouldn't require $1,000,000 Bitcoin price. Typing a ton
of decimals is incredibly annoying. Doing the mental math in my head is
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 ship may have already sailed, but...
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. This would bring us completely within
the realm of supported behavior in
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote:
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. This would bring us completely within
the
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
On Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:37:02 PM slush wrote:
Display based on locale.
Please don't bring locale into this. Bitcoin has always been intentionally
locale-independent (hence BTC using xxx,xxx,xxx.xx format even in locales
which swap the commas and periods). Localising display makes
Well it looks like the consensus is to do it, instead of talking about
it. I'm going to make sure we get uBTC into the next Armory release.
Hmm - be careful with the word consensus here. A bunch of people on a
mailing list does not make consensus ;)
If you survey other wallets, you'll find
On 03/13/2014 01:51 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
Well it looks like the consensus is to do it, instead of talking
about it. I'm going to make sure we get uBTC into the next Armory
release.
Hmm - be careful with the word consensus here. A bunch of people on
a mailing list does not
On 3/13/14, Troy Benjegerdes ho...@hozed.org wrote:
cynic hat: on
Every volatility bump messes up expectations of what a bitcoin is worth,
so why are we bikeshedding uBTC vs mBTC? Just be done with it and do mBTC
now, and plan uBTC for just after the next price spike to $10KUSD or
whatever,
You would only need to change it if there was a sub-satoshi hardfork,
which doesn't seem necessary anytime soon.
+
We shouldn't make any assumptions about the future price of bitcoin to make
the decision.
Hmmm ;) Didn't you just make an assumption about the future price?
This sounds
Another vote in support of uBTC. I made my position clear in May of last
year. Since then, Dogecoin has essentially PROVEN the psychological value
of a low-valued large-balance currency.
(From: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220322.msg2334059#msg2334059)
The whole unit change seems so
I agree with you Jeff. The unit switch needs to happen once and once only,
but that is exactly why I said the defaults really need to change in
Bitcoin-Qt since that is still the main reference implementation and it
will influence others.
Bitpay could also take the lead here and make the switch
On 3/13/14, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
You would only need to change it if there was a sub-satoshi hardfork,
which doesn't seem necessary anytime soon.
+
We shouldn't make any assumptions about the future price of bitcoin to make
the decision.
Hmmm ;) Didn't you just make an
Second this comment.
A change like this so soon after mt gox debacle would be one more sign of
bitcoins 'instability' for skeptics and average folk who read only headlines.
In general, it seems some people are looking to try and change the publics
mental price of BTC which is more of a
BIP: XX
Title: Physical key / edge detection software and PIN to generate a Bitcoin
private key
Author: Jack Scott
Status: Idea
Type: Standard Track
Created: 13-3-2014
Abstract:
A method is proposed to generate a Bitcoin private key by using a physical
key in conjunction with image recognition
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Jack Scott jack.scott.pub...@gmail.comwrote:
A method is proposed to generate a Bitcoin private key by using a physical
key in conjunction with image recognition software and a PIN. Use edge
detection software applied to incoming video feed to convert the
34 matches
Mail list logo
