That has been handled by so many programs fairly well over the years, I don't think that is a problem any more.
C#, en-US localization... decimal.Parse("1,2") -> 12 |
|
|
|
Optionally support specifying exponent: bitcoin:youraddress?amount=10.25 or bitcoin:youraddress?amount=10.25e8
This is VERY misleading. Some people definitely will think that 10.25e8 is 1025000000 BTC. The user is not expected to interpret the data in the URI, that is the job of the client software which handles the request. Bitcoin should show the amount in whatever format it shows other amounts. |
|
|
|
|
Well, if we're defaulting to decimal, will this be a problem?
User in Europe creates a bitcoin: link for two and a half BTC. They may enter this as "bitcoin:...?amount=2,5".
User in USA clicks this link. Depending on their regional settings and the programming language of the parsing application, "2,5" may not be the same as "two and a half".
|
|
|
|
|
I'll add another 5 BTC to that pot. It would be AWESOME if a bunch of people recorded themselves singing all or part of the song, and then someone mashed it up into one video.
|
|
|
|
Why does anyone think low level is a good idea? you're going to spend all your time having to add 'redundant' zeros. I guess this is discussed at length elsewhere...
Not sure, every discussion I've ever seen on the topic came to the conclusion that high-level is better. For small amounts (like will most likely be used in the future if Bitcoin becomes widely adopted), it's perhaps easier to use the low level format. What's easier to write and think about, 0.000001 Bitcoins or 1000 Satoshis/base units? In general, high level is better for numbers intended for human use, whereas I think low level is better for numbers intended for computer use. A URI is kind of a mix between the two, as a human creates the link, a human clicks on it, but a computer parses the data. |
|
|
|
|
I'm a programmer, and I wrote the C# URI implementation that's on the wiki for my program WalletBuddy.
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr's implementation allows for the person creating the bitcoin: URI to specify the amount in any of the following formats:
...and that implies someone parsing a bitcoin URI must support all that crap, even though 99.9% of all bitcoin users only use one of those formats. That's how one person's crusade to support tonal winds up costing us all. If you're implementing a bitcoin: URI handler and you feel that tonal/hex is not worth supporting, feel free to not write the extra few lines of code required. I really don't even care about tonal/hex, I'll never use it. However, Luke implemented the URI handler, and his condition for releasing it under the necessary license was that none of his code would be removed. If someone else wants to do extra work to rewrite the implementation without the additional feature, go ahead, but it seems stupid to me. I really don't see why you guys care so much about removing flexibility from the URI scheme. |
|
|
|
*Failure is defined as decline of the exchange rate of markets with highest volume (currently Mt.Gox) to below 0.01 USD. I don't think that's a good indicator of failure. I'd recommend some metric based on bitcoindays, as proposed by ByteCoin. |
|
|
|
It's better to keep a standard output and then have any specialized interfaces convert as needed. This isn't about output, it's about input from ANY possible third party. Luke-Jr's implementation allows for the person creating the bitcoin: URI to specify the amount in any of the following formats: plain decimal - "5", "5.5", "5.00000005" exponential decimal - "5e8", "5.5e8", "500000005e0" plain hex - "x2D4", "xA.76" exponential hex - "x2D4X4", "x2D40000X0" I think this is a good thing, even though I think the hex versions look ugly. The thing is, the user will probably never see that, since the client is able to translate "x2D4X4" into 0.47448064 BTC. Remember, these are going to be links like... <a href=bitcoin:[address]?amount=x2D4X4>Click to donate!</a> |
|
|
|
|
I still don't see a problem with one URI scheme that can handle all of the above, which is the one semi-finalized and implemented by Luke-Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
Heh, I modified the offer to include shipping, for easier bidding. I'm in Missouri, US.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll offer 125 BTC, shipped to the US, for the C1.
|
|
|
|
|
Which is why 'e' would work for decimal, as Luke said.
But now that I think about it, 'e' isn't in the tonal alphabet, right?
|
|
|
|
Maybe it's just me, but I didn't understand that 5X8 meant 500,000,000 until I read the specification in more detail. On the other hand, I would have instantly understood 5e8, because it's a standard convention. So at least in my case, there is a disadvantage to using this syntax, as it's less discoverable. I'd also point out that the difference in character height makes it easier to distinguish the exponent and multiplier in 5e8, whereas 5X8 is a little harder to read.
Perhaps I'm incorrect, but my guess is that the number of people who are familiar with the 5e8 convention is considerably greater than the amount of people who prefer using hexadecimal notation for monetary values. It's my opinion that using a syntax that disadvantages the majority, even if only slightly, is not worth the cost if only a very few people benefit.
If we really must have hexadecimal notation, can't we use a different exponent marker for hexadecimal values? e.g. 500e8 for decimals, and 0xf00x8 for hexadecimal.
Actually, I agree with this. Perhaps "e" or "X" could be used to denote the exponential unit. |
|
|
|
Please read the ones from tonight.
http://veritas.maximilianeum.ch/bitcoin/irc/logs/2011/04/20Here's how it appears to me... Jgarzik doesn't realize that the "tonal support" in this patch is merely allowing conversion of tonal specified units in the URI to Satoshis for internal use. It's not adding anything to do with displaying or computing tonal numbers into the actual client. I think having flexibility in the URI is a great thing. Why not allow people who use the URI on their sites to specify the amount in whatever format they choose? It will still display a decimal amount in the client. 5.0 == 5X8 == 500000000X0 == x1DCD6500X0 == x1DCBX4 == x1DCB I normally dislike Luke's evangelising of tonal, but in this case I don't see any ulterior motive on his part. |
|
|
|
Wallets are small enough that I might as well back them up every transaction, but I do like the idea of just using one address per user. I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I agree that one address per user is good. That way all they have to do is send some Bitcoin to the address they already have on file. As far as backups, the getinfo() JSON-RPC method returns a field called KeypoolOldest. This is the unix timestamp of the oldest key in the key pool (unused keys). You only need to create a new backup when your newest backup is older than the oldest key in the pool. |
|
|
|
I do not think that MtGox has had the opportunity to fully implement their ACH plans yet. I can do a US Bank transfer and will pay the transfer charges.
I haven't done it since MagicalTux bought the site, but I have wired money to MtGox to fund my account in the past. |
|
|
|
I don't see the problem of allowing the URI to support multiple amount formats. You are free to only use decimal if you like. Oh, there are complaints aplenty about the URI spec.
Google for #bitcoin-dev IRC logs... What are the specific complaints? Spending a few minutes Googling yielded chat logs, but nothing that I can connect to this discussion. |
|
|
|
Unless you're directly exchanging gold for goods and services, you're only using gold as a store of value, not medium of exchange. I want to use Bitcoin as a medium of exchange everywhere. Do you see the difference?
Yeah, I see the difference. I guess. But I don't think it's relevant. In both ways, at the end the result is the same: I had the stuffs I wanted to have. Then you're ignorant of the importance of BTC denominated prices. I'm not going to bother trying to educate you since you're a moron. If you can't figure out the difference yourself, you don't deserve to use Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
What does efficiency have to do with anything? I want to use Bitcoin as my primary unit of exchange. I want to pay for my food with BTC, pay rent in BTC, get paid in BTC. None of that is going to happen (outside of perhaps a small community) unless we are able to convince people that Bitcoin is worth more than fiat currency. Again, this is an educational problem.
You're wrong. I pay my rent, my food and pretty much everything I buy with gold. And yet gold is not the primary currency in my country. As long as there are efficient market exchange places, you can use pretty much any currency you want. Unless you're directly exchanging gold for goods and services, you're only using gold as a store of value, not medium of exchange. I want to use Bitcoin as a medium of exchange everywhere. Do you see the difference? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
