From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WO9tX-0008Bd-3S for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:58:15 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.41; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com; helo=mail-qa0-f41.google.com; Received: from mail-qa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.216.41]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WO9tV-0003rs-V2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:58:15 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id j5so1399521qaq.28 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.45.197 with SMTP id g5mr4213133qaf.52.1394733488489; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:58:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.85] (c-76-111-96-126.hsd1.md.comcast.net. [76.111.96.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t5sm4257067qge.0.2014.03.13.10.58.06 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5321F1AD.9020609@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:58:05 -0400 From: Alan Reiner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Hearn References: <52852C2D.9020103@gmail.com> <52853D8A.6010501@monetize.io> <5321D95C.2070402@gmail.com> <5321E87B.8050908@monetize.io> <5321EC89.6020300@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010000090004090900090809" X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (etotheipi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WO9tV-0003rs-V2 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] moving the default display to mbtc 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: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:58:15 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010000090004090900090809 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 make consensus ;) > > If you survey other wallets, you'll find most already switched to > mBTC, that it took some effort to do so (look at the size of the > patches for instance) and that probably, nobody is super-keen to > change again so soon. So uBTC would make you different to most of the > other wallets and services in wide usage. > > If Armory wants to do that, that's no problem, maybe it will be a > competitive advantage - just saying, don't quote this thread as > indicating some kind of community consensus. > > Wallets and services that are using mBTC (that I know of) > > blockchain.info > MultiBit > Bitcoin Wallet (Android) > Hive > Bitcoinity > KnC Wallet (defaults to BTC but can be switched to mBTC in settings, > uBTC not an option) > Mullvad > btcstore.eu > > Doing a google search for [bitcoin "mBTC"] and [bitcoin "uBTC"], the > former has a bunch of sites and services with prices in mBTC. The > latter only has faucets, as far as I can tell, which sort of makes sense. I actually was not aware that so many had already switched to mBTC. I guess it shows how much I use other wallets. You misunderstood my "consensus" comment. I was simply stating the "consensus" of debating on the mailing list endlessly is not as effective as doing it. Thus I was just going to do it and see who follows. But that also assumed there was not a critical mass who'd already switched -- I must admit I'm not so confident anymore... I am/so strongly opposed //to mBTC /compared to uBTC, I was ready to take a small leap of faith (with associated risks), to help push the "consensus". Of course it would still remain configurable, but the default will make a big difference. -Alan --------------010000090004090900090809 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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 make consensus ;)

If you survey other wallets, you'll find most already switched to mBTC, that it took some effort to do so (look at the size of the patches for instance) and that probably, nobody is super-keen to change again so soon. So uBTC would make you different to most of the other wallets and services in wide usage. 

If Armory wants to do that, that's no problem, maybe it will be a competitive advantage - just saying, don't quote this thread as indicating some kind of community consensus.

Wallets and services that are using mBTC (that I know of)

MultiBit
Bitcoin Wallet (Android)
Hive
Bitcoinity
KnC Wallet (defaults to BTC but can be switched to mBTC in settings, uBTC not an option)
Mullvad

Doing a google search for [bitcoin "mBTC"] and [bitcoin "uBTC"], the former has a bunch of sites and services with prices in mBTC. The latter only has faucets, as far as I can tell, which sort of makes sense.

I actually was not aware that so many had already switched to mBTC.   I guess it shows how much I use other wallets. 

You misunderstood my "consensus" comment.   I was simply stating the "consensus" of debating on the mailing list endlessly is not as effective as doing it.  Thus I was just going to do it and see who follows.  But that also assumed there was not a critical mass who'd already switched -- I must admit I'm not so confident anymore...

I am so strongly opposed to mBTC compared to uBTC, I was ready to take a small leap of faith (with associated risks), to help push the "consensus".  Of course it would still remain configurable, but the default will make a big difference.

-Alan
--------------010000090004090900090809--