the SI prefixes. People *do* use 63k USD, $63k, and $3M. I'll be the first
one
As a counter argument, many sources (including the BBC) abbreviate
million to 'm' (and billion to 'bn'), e.g. $3m, $3bn.
I think any similarity with SI units here is coincidental.
roy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03.05.2014 02:54, Ben Davenport wrote:
No one quotes amounts as 63 k$ or 3 M$. The accepted standard at
least in the US is currency-symbolamountmodifier, i.e. $63k
or $3M.
As you said, that's in the US, and I strongly suspect the sole reason
vendor hat: on
Related:
http://blog.bitpay.com/2014/05/02/bitpay-bitcoin-and-where-to-put-that-decimal-point.html
--
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/
I fully support this (it's what I suggested over a year ago), but what it
comes down to is BitPay, Coinbase, Blockchain and Bitstamp getting
together, agreeing what they're going to use, and doing a little joint
customer education campaign around it. If there's community momentum around
bits,
It will also be important to chose the currency symbol for bits at the
same time. Lowercase stroke b I think is the obvious choice.
Unicode U+0180
Aaron
On Friday, May 2, 2014, Alan Reiner etothe...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been a strong supporter of the 1e-6 unit switch since the beginning
and
I live in Argentina. Here, 1BTC is around half of a monthly average
wage (net), so, as you
can imagine, the value of 1 BTC is *very* inconvenient for everyday
transactions.
Also it presents an important entry barrier for new adopters: It would be
easier to accept buying thousands of bits than
On Saturday, May 03, 2014 12:54:37 AM Ben Davenport wrote:
My only addition is that I think we should all stop trying to attach SI
prefixes to the currency unit. Name me another world currency that uses SI
prefixes. No one quotes amounts as 63 k$ or 3 M$. The accepted standard at
least in the
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Huh? Your examples demonstrate the *opposite* of your point. 'k' and
'M' *are*
the SI prefixes. People *do* use 63k USD, $63k, and $3M.
Excellent point.
Also, I frequently hear statements referring to mili-bitcoins, mBTC, pronounced
as
Think your example is not quite valid ...
People say or write $88M or $45k I.e. use SI prefix as a suffix, else it would
be more, not less, clear on what amount is being referred to.
For me, bits are easy to say and one million as a factor is simple to
understand.
M-bits, kilobits, millibits,
Excellent move Jeff.
Best would now be to establish XBT as the ISO code for bits.
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
http://bitsofproof.com
On 02.05.2014, at 21:17, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote:
vendor hat: on
Related:
btw. None of Bitcoin Wallet's users complained about confusion because
of the mBTC switch. In contrast, I get many mails and questions if
exchange rates happen to differ by 10%.
I suspect nobody looks at the Bitcoin price. It's the amount in local
currency that matters to the users.
On
You give them a hard to interpret thing like mBTC and then wonder why
they rather look at local currency. Because the choices you gave them are bad.
I think Bitcoin would have a better chance to be percieved as a currency
of its own if it had prices and fractions like currencies do.
3.558 mBTC
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:05:25PM +0100, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
btw. None of Bitcoin Wallet's users complained about confusion because
of the mBTC switch. In contrast, I get many mails and questions if
exchange rates happen to differ by 10%.
At the moment, I imagine the vast majority of
you miss the point Andreas. It is not about the magnitude but about
the form of a price.
A number with no decimals or with two decimals is percieved as a
price in some currency.
A number with more than two decimals is just not percieved as a price
but as a geeky something that you rather
By that definition 3.56 is a price. Maybe I misunderstood you and you're
lobbying for mBTC?
On 03/14/2014 03:57 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote:
you miss the point Andreas. It is not about the magnitude but about
the form of a price.
A number with no decimals or with two decimals is percieved as a
I think you want to misunderstand me Andreas.
It is astonishing arrogance to define the units because we in Bitcoin are used
to
some wierd notation and ignore that the vast majority of population and
financial software in existence does not have a notion of prices
with more than two decimals.
You give them a hard to interpret thing like mBTC and then wonder why
they rather look at local currency. Because the choices you gave them are
bad.
I don't think this is particularly true. The options people are given are
all good in this case and all have their merits. The reason people are
I don't know about financial software.
I really don't get what you mean by weird notation? Bitcoin Wallet is
made for ordinary users. They are used to real-world prices like EUR
1.63 / USD 2.26 (that would be the Espresso example). How can mBTC 3.56
be weird to these people?
Granted, there are
I think Mark makes some good arguments.
I realize this would only add to the confusion, but...
What if we did relabel 100 satoshis to be some new kind of unit (bit or
whatever else), with a proper 3 letter code, and then from a user
standpoint, where people are using mBTC, they could switch to
Well, not sure I wanted to subscribe the mbtc vs ubtc list... its a
default, not a big deal.
--
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
Graph Databases is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
so much discussion for a visual update...
make this a user experiment:
-give the user the possibility to use BTC/mBTC/uMTC
-retrieve the results after some time
-make the default the most used option
2014-03-14 16:15 GMT+00:00 Alex Morcos mor...@gmail.com:
I think Mark makes some good
Fairly useless experiment, since the vast majority of users will almost
always stay at the default. The winner will always be whatever was
selected as the default initially. This might work if the default was
randomly chosen, and you see what actually annoyed users enough to switch
off of it
I think
* if we change to mBTC because your state currencys price for bitcoin
make this a valid option we will change again in future
* users do not like changes
* we should keep a good standard
A good standard should be
* built on standards (e.g. SI)
* backed by best practice: never force the
Regarding (ISO standards) currency symbols, XBT is already used as
equivalent to 1 Bitcoin in numerous places, and XBC is taken and BT*
belongs to Bhutan (and X** is already the default for non-national currency
common items of trade), so IMHO we should define something like XUB as
microbitcoins
Hello,
I see a lot of talk on this topic and get the senst that it is focused on
default display only regarding the mBTC / uBTC questions. However, if the
focus is broader, involving whether or how to express other currencies or
moving further along to what that might even mean (since many
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
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
One of the strongest results from psychology is the power of defaults over
people's
behaviohttp://danariely.com/2008/05/05/3-main-lessons-of-psychology/r.
Opt-in vs. opt-out national organ donation policies mean the difference
between organ donation rates under ~10% to over ~90%. Most people
While we're discussing the emotive (though actually of real relevance for
bitcoin user comprehension and sentiment) I couldnt resisnt to add some
trivia reference it is amusing that a currency rarely in history had to
deflate (remove 0s) rather than inflate (add 0s). Viz this hyperinflated
fifty
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:37:56AM -0800, Alex Kravets wrote:
Hi guys,
Alex, you're top-posting and not trimming your replies.
I've seen many many non-geeks be utterly intimidated and confused by
0.000X quantities and/or mBTC uBTC notation
Yes, people really can't tell any difference
On 14 November 2013 23:01, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
I wonder if it might make sense to bundle some other terminology fixups at
the
same time.
A very good idea.
Right now, Bitcoin-Qt has been using the term confirmations (plural) to
refer to how many blocks deep a transaction is
On Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:41:56 AM Drak wrote:
So a payment clears after one confirmation, but you might want to wait
until the payment has been confirmed n times.
Then at least you are not using the same word for two different meanings
and you're using stuff more familiar in popular
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/15/13 4:41 PM, Drak wrote:
For years, people had a problem with email address, instead
using email number but they got there eventually. Most people
nowadays use email address So payment address or bitcoin
address make better sense here
On Nov 15, 2013, at 05:10 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:On Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:41:56 AM Drak wrote:So "a payment clears after one confirmation, but you might want to waituntil the payment has been confirmed n times".Then at least you are not using the same word for two different
On 16 November 2013 01:10, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:41:56 AM Drak wrote:
So a payment clears after one confirmation, but you might want to wait
until the payment has been confirmed n times.
Then at least you are not using the same word for two
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/15/13 5:19 PM, Drak wrote:
Maybe, but again from the user's perspective they pay someone, and
they receive money - just like you do with paypal using an email
address. The technical bits in the middle dont matter to the user
and trying to
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:45:51 AM Melvin Carvalho wrote:
Would now be a good time to start thinking about changing the default
display in the software. Perhaps initially it could be a dropdown display
option, then at some point mbtc becomes the default?
There's already a dropdown
I highly recommend that if we make any move towards this, that the
software show verification in both/all units.
For instance, there should be 3 input fields, one for BTC, one for
mBTC one for uBTC. As the user enters a value in one of the fields,
it would automatically update the other fields
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
For this reason I'm in favor of skipping mBTC and moving straight to
uBTC. Having eight, or even five decimal places is not intuitive to
the average user. Two decimal places is becoming standard for new
national currencies, and we wouldn't be too far
Go straight to uBTC. Humans and existing computer systems handle numbers to
the left of the decimals just fine (HK Dollars, Yen). The opposite is
untrue (QuickBooks really does not like 3+ decimal places).
- Jeff
On Nov 14, 2013 4:40 PM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote:
-BEGIN
Obviously the answer is to just display all fees and trading rates as BTC
or MBTC (.005 MBTC fee? how cheap!). On a more serious note, the
transition should definitely be thought out well as it could be very
damaging to have this confusion, but I would prefer to do it only once
rather than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/14/13 2:00 PM, Alan Reiner wrote:
Just keep in mind it will be a little awkward that 54.3 uBTC is
the smallest unit that can be transferred [easily] and the standard
fees are 500 uBTC.It's not a deal breaker, it's just something
that
On 14 November 2013 22:00, Alan Reiner etothe...@gmail.com wrote:
Just keep in mind it will be a little awkward that 54.3 uBTC is the
smallest unit that can be transferred [easily] and the standard fees are
500 uBTC.It's not a deal breaker,
The fed was reduced to 0.0001/kb a while
On 14 November 2013 22:32, Drak d...@zikula.org wrote:
On 14 November 2013 22:00, Alan Reiner etothe...@gmail.com wrote:
Just keep in mind it will be a little awkward that 54.3 uBTC is the
smallest unit that can be transferred [easily] and the standard fees are
500 uBTC.It's not a deal
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:07:58 PM Allen Piscitello wrote:
Obviously the answer is to just display all fees and trading rates as BTC
or MBTC (.005 MBTC fee? how cheap!). On a more serious note, the
transition should definitely be thought out well as it could be very
damaging to
On Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:53:16 PM Alan Reiner wrote:
I really like the XBT idea. It makes a lot of sense to match the ISO
currency symbol (though the ISO guys will have to adjust the way they've
defined the XBT). And I do agree that going right to uBTC and
skipping mBTC makes sense,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/14/13 3:01 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:
I think we all know the problems with the term address. People
naturally compare it to postal addresses, email addresses, etc,
which operate fundamentally different. I suggest that we switch to
using invoice id
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Drak d...@zikula.org wrote:
Unless something is recommended/done by the bitcoin core developers I doubt
much will change at bitcoin user/consumer level.
While the sentiment is appreciated, it seems important to gently push
back a bit, and remind:
This is a
On 15 November 2013 01:37, Daniel F nanot...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a decentralized currency, and we should avoid centralizing
decisions. This is something that impacts the community at large, and
deserves input and discussion at every level.
I would suggest posting on all possible
I disagree. There's a real perception and usability issue with the
current interface combined with the current price. People are
intimidated by the current system, even though the price really reflects
Bitcoin starting to spread its wings (maybe prematurely, bubble-style,
but the price will have
78 matches
Mail list logo
