Re: [Bitcoin-development] moving the default display to mbtc

2014-05-02 Thread Ben Davenport
I fully support this (it's what I suggested over a year ago), but what it comes down to is BitPay, Coinbase, Blockchain and Bitstamp getting together, agreeing what they're going to use, and doing a little joint customer education campaign around it. If there's community momentum around bits,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] moving the default display to mbtc

2014-05-02 Thread Ben Davenport
Luke, My point is that you never apply the prefixes to the currency unit itself. We don't spend kilodollars or megadollars. Ben On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org wrote: On Saturday, May 03, 2014 12:54:37 AM Ben Davenport wrote: My only addition is that I think we

Re: [Bitcoin-development] moving the default display to mbtc

2014-03-13 Thread Ben Davenport
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

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses

2014-01-17 Thread Ben Davenport
Well, at least we don't have to worry about cache invalidation. Ben On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Peter Todd p...@petertodd.org wrote: On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:15:40AM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: I must say, this shed is mighty fine looking. It'd be a great place to store our bikes.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Suggestion: allow receivers to pay optional fee for transactions without fees

2014-01-16 Thread Ben Davenport
You can create a transaction which spends the output to yourself, attaching a fee to that transaction. In order for miners to grab the transaction fee on that transaction, they would have to also mine the original transaction. Likely, you'd have to do this by hand, but software could be written to