From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RrwjD-0002V0-Fn for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:17:23 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1RrwjC-00046b-KT for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:17:23 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-164-217.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.164.217]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1282B560718; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:17:13 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: Gary Rowe Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:17:03 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.5-gentoo; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <201201301356.16032.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201201301417.05584.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RrwjC-00046b-KT Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 21 (modification BIP 20) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:17:23 -0000 On Monday, January 30, 2012 2:13:52 PM Gary Rowe wrote: > Having closely read the BIP20 proposal, I can see your point. As I see it, > BIP 20 vs BIP 21 is about standardising on a representation of the "amount" > field. BIP 20 proposes that "amount" can contain alternative > representations, clearly defined, whereas BIP 21 requires the use of a > single representation in decimal notation. > > In my view, BIP 21 still wins since it reduces complexity for the end > client both at the human and machine level. If the goal is to reduce complexity, strtol-compatible amount is the answer ;)