A difference of opinions at the Bitcoin Foundation regarding the XBT proposal? - page 4.

Biodom

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 4331

Quote from: pawel7777 on October 21, 2014, 05:10:11 PM

Quote from: Biodom on October 21, 2014, 04:12:43 PM

Why would it be a problem? right now yen is ~1:100 of the dollar, so I presume movie ticket cost 1000-2000 yen, so btc 0.025 ($10)=25000 XBT would be no problem.
people will just say "thou"-in your last example-25 thou or 25k bits

So if we were to go that route, we would divide in 2 groups, one using the old (current) system and other -the new one. Total chaos.

So, as I said before, I do see your point, but it will likely do more bad than good.

Oh, no, we will divide into "Little-Endians" and "Big-Endians" (J. Swift) or worse yet, United Bitcoin Alliance vs United Bitcoin League (reminiscent of South Park)... it's inevitable Grin

.

Biodom

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 4331

Quote from: R2D221 on October 21, 2014, 05:06:21 PM

Quote from: Biodom on October 21, 2014, 04:50:05 PM

No, it does not, apart from maybe for 1-10 thou people.
Regardless whether we agree or not, Matonis opinion contradicts his own Foundation press release that I quoted-this is crystal clear.
What gives?

You want to discuss the contradiction? Then discuss the contradiction. The original post talks about proposing XBT = microbitcoin, which is irrelevant in what Matonis said.

This is funny, because this was what was in the original post:

Quote

Conclusion: What Mr. Matonis has released on 10/21 is in clear contradiction with the prior Press-release of the Bitcoin Foundation.

XBT=microbitcoin is implied in BF press release that I also quoted. Why would BF release something and then its chairman directly contradicts it in press?

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: Biodom on October 21, 2014, 04:12:43 PM

Why would it be a problem? right now yen is ~1:100 of the dollar, so I presume movie ticket cost 1000-2000 yen, so btc 0.025 ($10)=25000 XBT would be no problem.
people will just say "thou"-in your last example-25 thou or 25k bits

OK, the last example didn't really made my point, whether it's XBT25000 or XBT0.025 it shouldn't be too hard to comprehend for anyone.

My point was, too many digits will cause confusion, whether it's right or left side of decimal.

You idea offers some improvement, as it's slightly easier to deal with larger numbers than smaller fractions, but it would only work if we assume that everyone will instantly and happily switch to the new system. But we know that's not gonna happen.

So if we were to go that route, we would divide in 2 groups, one using the old (current) system and other -the new one. Total chaos.

So, as I said before, I do see your point, but it will likely do more bad than good.

explorer

legendary

Activity: 2016

Merit: 1259

Quote from: R2D221 on October 21, 2014, 04:46:03 PM

Quote from: Biodom on October 21, 2014, 04:12:43 PM

Quote from: pawel7777 on October 21, 2014, 04:00:13 PM

Quote from: Biodom on October 21, 2014, 03:43:10 PM

Non-mathematicians have difficulty picturing sums like 0.00014321 BTC, which would be 143.21 XBT if XBT=100 satoshi(s)
The transition would be even more seamless because people already started thinking in bits. If 1XBT=1bit=100 satoshi, it would all make sense.

I see your point, but agree with R2D221 and Jon Matonis. Don't know whether 'catastrophic' is the right word, but it would create too much confusion.

As per your example, from the small/medium business or even customer's perspective, you'll be more likely dealing with amounts ranging say between BTC0.01 to BTC100 rather than BTC0.00014321. A few examples:

BTC99.15 = XBT99150000
BTC1.456 = XBT1456000
BTC0.025 = XBT25000

To me, that doesn't look much better than 0.00014321, does it?

Why would it be a problem? right now yen is ~1:100 of the dollar, so I presume movie ticket cost 1000-2000 yen, so btc 0.025 ($10)=25000 XBT would be no problem.
people will just say "thou"-in your last example-25 thou or 25k bits

The problem is not scale, but terminology. XBT already has a defined meaning (= Bitcoin). You want to change the meaning of a symbol people already understand. You're going to have a bad time convincing them to arbitrarily switch the meaning rather than creating a new symbol.

.01% of people 'understand' the current symbols. Now is the time to change to something easier for the vast majority to understand - before they've even ever heard of bitcoin.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Biodom on October 21, 2014, 04:50:05 PM

No, it does not, apart from maybe for 1-10 thou people.
Regardless whether we agree or not, Matonis opinion contradicts his own Foundation press release that I quoted-this is crystal clear.
What gives?

You want to discuss the contradiction? Then discuss the contradiction. The original post talks about proposing XBT = microbitcoin, which is irrelevant in what Matonis said.

Biodom

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 4331

Quote from: R2D221 on October 21, 2014, 04:46:03 PM

Quote from: Biodom on October 21, 2014, 04:12:43 PM

Quote from: pawel7777 on October 21, 2014, 04:00:13 PM

Quote from: Biodom on October 21, 2014, 03:43:10 PM

Non-mathematicians have difficulty picturing sums like 0.00014321 BTC, which would be 143.21 XBT if XBT=100 satoshi(s)
The transition would be even more seamless because people already started thinking in bits. If 1XBT=1bit=100 satoshi, it would all make sense.

I see your point, but agree with R2D221 and Jon Matonis. Don't know whether 'catastrophic' is the right word, but it would create too much confusion.

As per your example, from the small/medium business or even customer's perspective, you'll be more likely dealing with amounts ranging say between BTC0.01 to BTC100 rather than BTC0.00014321. A few examples:

BTC99.15 = XBT99150000
BTC1.456 = XBT1456000
BTC0.025 = XBT25000

To me, that doesn't look much better than 0.00014321, does it?

Why would it be a problem? right now yen is ~1:100 of the dollar, so I presume movie ticket cost 1000-2000 yen, so btc 0.025 ($10)=25000 XBT would be no problem.
people will just say "thou"-in your last example-25 thou or 25k bits

XBT already has a defined meaning (= Bitcoin).

No, it does not, apart from maybe for 1-10 thou people.
Regardless whether we agree or not, Matonis opinion contradicts his own Foundation press release that I quoted-this is crystal clear.
What gives?

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Biodom on October 21, 2014, 04:12:43 PM

Quote from: pawel7777 on October 21, 2014, 04:00:13 PM

Quote from: Biodom on October 21, 2014, 03:43:10 PM

Non-mathematicians have difficulty picturing sums like 0.00014321 BTC, which would be 143.21 XBT if XBT=100 satoshi(s)
The transition would be even more seamless because people already started thinking in bits. If 1XBT=1bit=100 satoshi, it would all make sense.

I see your point, but agree with R2D221 and Jon Matonis. Don't know whether 'catastrophic' is the right word, but it would create too much confusion.

As per your example, from the small/medium business or even customer's perspective, you'll be more likely dealing with amounts ranging say between BTC0.01 to BTC100 rather than BTC0.00014321. A few examples:

BTC99.15 = XBT99150000
BTC1.456 = XBT1456000
BTC0.025 = XBT25000

To me, that doesn't look much better than 0.00014321, does it?

Why would it be a problem? right now yen is ~1:100 of the dollar, so I presume movie ticket cost 1000-2000 yen, so btc 0.025 ($10)=25000 XBT would be no problem.
people will just say "thou"-in your last example-25 thou or 25k bits

The problem is not scale, but terminology. XBT already has a defined meaning (= Bitcoin). You want to change the meaning of a symbol people already understand. You're going to have a bad time convincing them to arbitrarily switch the meaning rather than creating a new symbol.

Biodom

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 4331

Quote from: pawel7777 on October 21, 2014, 04:00:13 PM

Quote from: Biodom on October 21, 2014, 03:43:10 PM

Non-mathematicians have difficulty picturing sums like 0.00014321 BTC, which would be 143.21 XBT if XBT=100 satoshi(s)
The transition would be even more seamless because people already started thinking in bits. If 1XBT=1bit=100 satoshi, it would all make sense.

I see your point, but agree with R2D221 and Jon Matonis. Don't know whether 'catastrophic' is the right word, but it would create too much confusion.

As per your example, from the small/medium business or even customer's perspective, you'll be more likely dealing with amounts ranging say between BTC0.01 to BTC100 rather than BTC0.00014321. A few examples:

BTC99.15 = XBT99150000
BTC1.456 = XBT1456000
BTC0.025 = XBT25000

To me, that doesn't look much better than 0.00014321, does it?

Why would it be a problem? right now yen is ~1:100 of the dollar, so I presume movie ticket cost 1000-2000 yen, so btc 0.025 ($10)=25000 XBT would be no problem.
people will just say "thou"-in your last example-25 thou or 25k bits

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: Biodom on October 21, 2014, 03:43:10 PM

Non-mathematicians have difficulty picturing sums like 0.00014321 BTC, which would be 143.21 XBT if XBT=100 satoshi(s)
The transition would be even more seamless because people already started thinking in bits. If 1XBT=1bit=100 satoshi, it would all make sense.

I see your point, but agree with R2D221 and Jon Matonis. Don't know whether 'catastrophic' is the right word, but it would create too much confusion.

As per your example, from the small/medium business or even customer's perspective, you'll be more likely dealing with amounts ranging say between BTC0.01 to BTC100 rather than BTC0.00014321. A few examples:

BTC99.15 = XBT99150000
BTC1.456 = XBT1456000
BTC0.025 = XBT25000

To me, that doesn't look much better than 0.00014321, does it?

Biodom

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 4331

Quote from: R2D221 on October 21, 2014, 03:31:08 PM

Quote

One bitcoin on the block chain must equal one bitcoin in the formal standards world or else processing errors would be potentially catastrophic.

I agree with this. People already use XBT to mean Bitcoin (because they rightly thought BTC was not a standard name). If you tell them to change the definition to XBT = 1 microbitcoin, then confusion will inevitably arise.

The fact that current accounting software can't handle more that 2 decimal places means that this software must adapt to our needs (and use µXBT in the meantime, if it's much trouble).

People should not adapt to the software. That's not how it works.

Non-mathematicians have difficulty picturing sums like 0.00014321 BTC, which would be 143.21 XBT if XBT=100 satoshi(s)
The transition would be even more seamless because people already started thinking in bits. If 1XBT=1bit=100 satoshi, it would all make sense.

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote

One bitcoin on the block chain must equal one bitcoin in the formal standards world or else processing errors would be potentially catastrophic.

I agree with this. People already use XBT to mean Bitcoin (because they rightly thought BTC was not a standard name). If you tell them to change the definition to XBT = 1 microbitcoin, then confusion will inevitably arise.

The fact that current accounting software can't handle more that 2 decimal places means that this software must adapt to our needs (and use µXBT in the meantime, if it's much trouble).

People should not adapt to the software. That's not how it works.

Biodom

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 4331

First of all,

1. Mr. Matonis talks like he gives everybody else a dictat on how XBT has to to be calculated.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-needs-iso-certified-currency-code/

Quote

One XBT unit as listed and recorded within ISO 4217 would have eight subunits or decimal places to the right of the decimal point.The rationale for this is that a neutral global default for bitcoin around the world cannot deviate from the unit's representation on the block chain and the bitcoin integer in the core protocol is not changing.One bitcoin on the block chain must equal one bitcoin in the formal standards world or else processing errors would be potentially catastrophic.

Then, perhaps, the core protocol should change so XBT=100 satoshi. There is NOTHING catastrophic about this change. Mr. Matonis is NOT a computer programmer and is prone to gross exaggeration here, I believe.

Why make this change? Because it would make bitcoin much easier to handle as it will incorporate satoshi(s) as two digits post period (which is familiar to EVERYONE).

2. Mr. Matonis writings are also in clear contradiction with the Bitcoin Foundation press release of October 7, 2014.
https://bitcoinfoundation.org/press-releases/press-release-october-7-2014-bitcoin-foundation-financial-standards-working-group-leads-the-way-for-mainstream-bitcoin-adoption-2/
I quote:

Quote

The working group will deploy a consensus based process for reaching an agreement for the official currency symbol. In addition, the working group will recommend Bitcoin subunits. In a currency, there is usually a main unit (base), and a subunit that is a fraction of the main unit. Currencies today operate with two decimal spaces to the right ($1.00). In Bitcoin, there are currently eight so one could theoretically pay you 0.00000001 or one hundred-millionth of a Bitcoin. Not only is this confusing for consumers, it does not fit in existing systems and software for accounting practices.

Conclusion: What Mr. Matonis has released on 10/21 is in clear contradiction with the prior Press-release of the Bitcoin Foundation.

Suggestion: making XBT equal 100 satoshi is an elegant solution. What would be a colloquial name for XBT: market participants would decide whether to call these units bits, bitcoins (again, but not BTC) or finney (in honor of Hal Finney).

Topic: A difference of opinions at the Bitcoin Foundation regarding the XBT proposal? - page 4. (Read 5044 times)