Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-03-13 📝 Original message:> > Using milli- and ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-03-13
📝 Original message:>
> 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.
Unfortunately I think some people already started using XBT to mean the
same as BTC (another ship that sailed: somehow Bhutan will have to live
with it). So if some software started to redefine it to mean something
else, that seems like a recipe for accidentally sending far too much or too
little money by mistake.
The whole area of symbols, denominations etc is a confusing mess right now,
it opens up the potential for mistakes and makes Bitcoin look
unprofessional. Part of the reason I don't want us to revisit this at the
moment is we need to grab onto any consistency we can get. People want to
think in terms of a single unit. BTC vs mBTC is already bad enough, it'd be
easy to miss the denomination and do some sums wrong. Introducing a third
unit, especially one that skips the intervening nanoBTC, seems like a way
to make mistakes even more common!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140313/1238dc0f/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:>
> 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.
Unfortunately I think some people already started using XBT to mean the
same as BTC (another ship that sailed: somehow Bhutan will have to live
with it). So if some software started to redefine it to mean something
else, that seems like a recipe for accidentally sending far too much or too
little money by mistake.
The whole area of symbols, denominations etc is a confusing mess right now,
it opens up the potential for mistakes and makes Bitcoin look
unprofessional. Part of the reason I don't want us to revisit this at the
moment is we need to grab onto any consistency we can get. People want to
think in terms of a single unit. BTC vs mBTC is already bad enough, it'd be
easy to miss the denomination and do some sums wrong. Introducing a third
unit, especially one that skips the intervening nanoBTC, seems like a way
to make mistakes even more common!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140313/1238dc0f/attachment.html>;