Andreas Schildbach [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-03-14 📝 Original message:By that definition 3.56 is ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-03-14
📝 Original message: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
> 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 convert to local currency.
>
> Tamas Blummer
> Bits of Proof
>
> On 14.03.2014, at 15:49, Andreas Schildbach <andreas at schildbach.de
> <mailto:andreas at schildbach.de>> wrote:
>
>> How much do you pay for an Espresso in your local currency?
>>
>> At least for the Euro and the Dollar, mBTC 3.56 is very close to what
>> people would expect. Certainly more familiar than µBTC 3558 or BTC
>> 0.003578.
>>
>> Anyway, I was just sharing real-world experience: nobody is confused.
>>
>>
>> On 03/14/2014 03:14 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote:
>>> 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 or 0.003578 BTC will never be as accepted as 3558 bits
>>> would be.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tamas Blummer Bits of Proof
>>>
>>> On 14.03.2014, at 15:05, Andreas Schildbach <andreas at schildbach.de
>>> <mailto:andreas at schildbach.de>>
>>> 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%.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect nobody looks at the Bitcoin price. It's the amount in
>>>> local currency that matters to the users.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/13/2014 02:40 PM, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
>>>>> 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 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.rowe at froot.co.uk <mailto:g.rowe at froot.co.uk>
>>>>>> <mailto:g.rowe at froot.co.uk>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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, spaces and points. This allows anyone to
>>>>>> customise to meet their own needs beyond the offered default.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We apply the NIST guidelines for representation of SI unit
>>>>>> symbols (i.e no conversion to native language, no RTL giving
>>>>>> icon+m etc).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now MultiBit HD is configured to use m+icon taken from
>>>>>> the Font Awesome icon set. However reading earlier posts it
>>>>>> seems that μ+icon is more sensible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let us know what you'd like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Links: m+icon screenshot: http://imgur.com/a/WCDoG Font
>>>>>> Awesome icon:
>>>>>> http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/icon/btc/ NIST SI
>>>>>> guidelines: http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec07.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13 March 2014 12:56, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com
>>>>>> <mailto:jgarzik at bitpay.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:jgarzik at 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 confusion, thanks to
>>>>>> yet another decimal place transition.
📝 Original message: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
> 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 convert to local currency.
>
> Tamas Blummer
> Bits of Proof
>
> On 14.03.2014, at 15:49, Andreas Schildbach <andreas at schildbach.de
> <mailto:andreas at schildbach.de>> wrote:
>
>> How much do you pay for an Espresso in your local currency?
>>
>> At least for the Euro and the Dollar, mBTC 3.56 is very close to what
>> people would expect. Certainly more familiar than µBTC 3558 or BTC
>> 0.003578.
>>
>> Anyway, I was just sharing real-world experience: nobody is confused.
>>
>>
>> On 03/14/2014 03:14 PM, Tamas Blummer wrote:
>>> 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 or 0.003578 BTC will never be as accepted as 3558 bits
>>> would be.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tamas Blummer Bits of Proof
>>>
>>> On 14.03.2014, at 15:05, Andreas Schildbach <andreas at schildbach.de
>>> <mailto:andreas at schildbach.de>>
>>> 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%.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect nobody looks at the Bitcoin price. It's the amount in
>>>> local currency that matters to the users.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/13/2014 02:40 PM, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
>>>>> 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 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.rowe at froot.co.uk <mailto:g.rowe at froot.co.uk>
>>>>>> <mailto:g.rowe at froot.co.uk>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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, spaces and points. This allows anyone to
>>>>>> customise to meet their own needs beyond the offered default.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We apply the NIST guidelines for representation of SI unit
>>>>>> symbols (i.e no conversion to native language, no RTL giving
>>>>>> icon+m etc).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now MultiBit HD is configured to use m+icon taken from
>>>>>> the Font Awesome icon set. However reading earlier posts it
>>>>>> seems that μ+icon is more sensible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let us know what you'd like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Links: m+icon screenshot: http://imgur.com/a/WCDoG Font
>>>>>> Awesome icon:
>>>>>> http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/icon/btc/ NIST SI
>>>>>> guidelines: http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec07.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13 March 2014 12:56, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com
>>>>>> <mailto:jgarzik at bitpay.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:jgarzik at 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 confusion, thanks to
>>>>>> yet another decimal place transition.