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 assumption about the future price?

You can just remove my assertion about the likeliness of the need of
sub-satoshis and the main claim still stands.

> The currencies I'm familiar with are CHF, USD, EUR and GBP, which all have
> roughly similar values. I guess such currencies make up the bulk of the
> Bitcoin userbase at the moment.

Fair enough, not US-centric but western-centric then.
In any case the "3000 micros will look like expensive" claim is still
very relative.

>> "People seem to like mBTC" is just an ad populum fallacy: millions of
>> flies can actually be wrong. Also you haven't showed them micros,
>> maybe they like it too.
> Saying "it's already popular and would take work to change" is not really a
> fallacy now, is it?

No, it's not. That's what I said the current adoption by some wallets
and services was the only valid argument immediately after dismantling
the actual fallacy.
Did you missed that last sentence or are you intentionally using a
straw man argument?

In summary, yes, that's point is valid, I'm not saying it isn't. I
just wanted to keep us away from the rest argument but pointing out
they are not logic.
I repeat, that's the ONLY valid argument I've heard so far.

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 available. Download your free book today!
Bitcoin-development mailing list

Reply via email to