Re: [Bitcoin-development] moving the default display to mbtc

[Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2041 bytes --]

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
nothing to do with whether it "looks expensive".  There are reasons for
wanting the numbers to be higher as well, as evidenced by the number of
Dogecoin enthusiasts who like "having more", even if it doesn't matter.
 That part gets more subjective, but still favors micros in most cases.
 Sure, 3000 may sound like a lot, but if you have a lot more, it's all a
different scale.

If the argument is for keeping things based on what is already done, why
even switch to millis?  After all, everyone is used to full Bitcoins, why
even change to millis?  Whatever your arguments are there, for switching
base bitcoins to millis, try to see why they fail at micros (other than the
subjective argument that I'm used to decimal units of currency being worth
a cup of coffee, even though numerous people all over the world don't have
that conditioning).


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

> 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 so terrible, merchants have a simple solution:
> do the rounding before presenting the price. Then the price looks like
> "3.12 mBTC" which is sort of what I'd expect it to look like. But some
> wallets already make digits >2dp smaller so visually you can get precision
> whilst still looking similar to what you might expect (this is what Bitcoin
> Wallet does).
>
>
>> I haven't seen a single good argument for keeping it in mBTC (other than
>> some people already did it).
>>
>
> That's the good argument!
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2889 bytes --]