rich1.0npub1sm6zhjmk5scuz294jmpkw99wwwjzetjgwp4fu4gn6utqgdz87hkqamnq7hhttps://nostr.ae/npub1sm6zhjmk5scuz294jmpkw99wwwjzetjgwp4fu4gn6utqgdz87hkqamnq7hnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2013-11-14 📝 Original message:Just keep in mind it will be a little awkward that 54.3 uBTC is the smallest unit that can be transferred [easily] and the standard fees are 500 uBTC. It's not a deal breaker, it's just something that needs to be taken into consideration when it comes to user perception (which is one of the reasons we would make such a change in the first place). "Holy crap these fees are huge! I thought Bitcoin didn't have fees!" On 11/14/2013 04:55 PM, Allen Piscitello wrote: > I also would prefer to go straight to uBTC as the "standard wallet unit". It works out perfectly with Satoshi's being the decimal units. Something that costs $10USD would be 25000uBTC. This isn't a problem for a place like South Korea, where 10USD is about 10,000 Won, so we aren't even off on a scale of usable currencies in major economies. > > The downsides are obviously confusion (causing mistakes resulting in lost coins), and possibly from a psychological perspective on price (uBTC are worthless!). On the other hand, it also might help people feel like they are getting in on the ground floor still (I own 100,000 uBTC!), and reduce the perception the Bitcoins are not divisible (I have heard several people worry that 21 million is not enough units). > > Alan's ideas for compatibility with multiple fields will also be helpful to solving the confusion issue. > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark at monetize.io <mailto:mark at monetize.io>> wrote: > > For this reason I'm in favor of skipping mBTC and moving straight to > uBTC. Having eight, or even five decimal places is not intuitive to > the average user. Two decimal places is becoming standard for new > national currencies, and we wouldn't be too far from human scale > everyday numbers: 25.00uBTC ~= $0.01 currently. And I don't think very > many people on this list would consider bitcoin overvalued in the long > term perspective. > > Better to go through a confusing renumbering only once. > > Mark > > On 11/14/13 12:01 PM, Alan Reiner wrote: > > ... I'm also of the opinion that it's freakin' hard to change the > > base unit in such an established system. There is no easy way to > > do this that doesn't cause more heartache than it's worth... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > DreamFactory - Open Source REST & JSON Services for HTML5 & Native Apps > OAuth, Users, Roles, SQL, NoSQL, BLOB Storage and External API Access > Free app hosting. Or install the open source package on any LAMP server. > Sign up and see examples for AngularJS, jQuery, Sencha Touch and Native! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63469471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > DreamFactory - Open Source REST & JSON Services for HTML5 & Native Apps > OAuth, Users, Roles, SQL, NoSQL, BLOB Storage and External API Access > Free app hosting. Or install the open source package on any LAMP server. > Sign up and see examples for AngularJS, jQuery, Sencha Touch and Native! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63469471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131114/862ccf75/attachment.html>