📅 Original date posted:2012-01-30
📝 Original message: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 at 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).
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120130/cb417acb/attachment.html>;
Gary Rowe [ARCHIVE] /
npub1j8…wpach
2023-06-07 03:00:05
in reply to nevent1q…lc6q
Author Public Key
npub1j8mfekhmgtne6ptzxptudrcpwd6wtyxk64qdn3swy2nv46zuledskwpachSeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 03:00:05Event JSON
{
"id": "bd1e0da58e221ab3ecb4e4b0978bfbdf35628548424020c661ed21f713747103",
"pubkey": "91f69cdafb42e79d05623057c68f017374e590d6d540d9c60e22a6cae85cfe5b",
"created_at": 1686106805,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3e5956a8acf8033ec81960cff0126fd9c6cb72d9935ba44f4558ea419f8c85b8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"418639dd10ba245abffd7e27619b84bcde8f3864686fd3f46694dc023a07a226",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-01-30\n📝 Original message:Having closely read the BIP20 proposal, I can see your point. As I see it,\nBIP 20 vs BIP 21 is about standardising on a representation of the \"amount\"\nfield. BIP 20 proposes that \"amount\" can contain alternative\nrepresentations, clearly defined, whereas BIP 21 requires the use of a\nsingle representation in decimal notation.\n\nIn my view, BIP 21 still wins since it reduces complexity for the end\nclient both at the human and machine level.\n\nOn 30 January 2012 18:56, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Monday, January 30, 2012 1:50:03 PM Gary Rowe wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Speaking on behalf of the MultiBit team (Jim's currently on holiday), we\n\u003e \u003e will not be supporting Tonal Bitcoins anytime soon. Therefore we back the\n\u003e \u003e BIP 21 proposal.\n\u003e\n\u003e It is not correct to imply that BIP 20 requires Tonal Bitcoin support.\n\u003e In fact, the exact opposite is true; it states that even if one unit (eg,\n\u003e TBC)\n\u003e would be a more rational way to display a specified amount, clients should\n\u003e still interpret it in the way that is deemed to be most intuitive to the\n\u003e user\n\u003e (eg, BTC).\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20120130/cb417acb/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "10ff14c23a91689d905c3ec8c6173c0180fcab6c4aed8d77cbc9eb3649f651883164422122f8c308bfcdfd426b6211c077d63bc909eb3f1cfe663c3b887c394d"
}