From: Gary Rowe <g.rowe@froot•co.uk>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 21 (modification BIP 20)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:13:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKm8k+2JcZ++N76HOd+Obr1DR3gG9e+U-gVCHYyN_Eo-4+ciZw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201201301356.16032.luke@dashjr.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1068 bytes --]
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.
On 30 January 2012 18:56, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2012 1:50:03 PM Gary Rowe wrote:
> > Speaking on behalf of the MultiBit team (Jim's currently on holiday), we
> > will not be supporting Tonal Bitcoins anytime soon. Therefore we back the
> > BIP 21 proposal.
>
> It is not correct to imply that BIP 20 requires Tonal Bitcoin support.
> In fact, the exact opposite is true; it states that even if one unit (eg,
> TBC)
> would be a more rational way to display a specified amount, clients should
> still interpret it in the way that is deemed to be most intuitive to the
> user
> (eg, BTC).
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1405 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-30 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-30 18:50 Gary Rowe
2012-01-30 18:56 ` Luke-Jr
2012-01-30 19:13 ` Gary Rowe [this message]
2012-01-30 19:17 ` Luke-Jr
2012-01-31 6:54 ` thomasV1
2012-01-31 13:12 ` Gavin Andresen
2012-01-31 13:20 ` Cameron Garnham
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-01-31 10:39 [Bitcoin-development] BIP 21 (modification BIP 20)] Pieter Wuille
2012-01-30 18:07 [Bitcoin-development] BIP 21 (modification BIP 20) thomasV1
2012-01-30 18:44 ` Luke-Jr
2012-01-29 23:55 Amir Taaki
2012-01-30 9:13 ` Wladimir
2012-01-31 8:23 ` Andreas Schildbach
2012-01-31 8:35 ` Wladimir
2012-01-31 10:01 ` Gary Rowe
2012-01-31 10:22 ` Wladimir
2012-01-31 11:55 ` Andreas Schildbach
2012-01-31 12:03 ` Wladimir
2012-01-31 10:44 ` Pieter Wuille
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAKm8k+2JcZ++N76HOd+Obr1DR3gG9e+U-gVCHYyN_Eo-4+ciZw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=g.rowe@froot$(echo .)co.uk \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox