I understand the 1 2 3 8 16 32 64 numbering.
But it makes you wonder why CM did it. I am sure there are other BTC0.128 chips out there, but I would imaging that there are several orders of magnitude more addresses with BTC0.1
Just for anonymity using more common amounts would be logical. With that in mind @LoyceV how difficult would it be to see how many BTC0.1 BTC0.2 BTC0.5 BTC1.0 and BTC2.0 addresses that meet the criteria.
i.e. I don't care about an address with BTC1 if it got 4 deposits go get there, so the same as how CM would have done it vs their amounts.
I could probably download your data and have one of the programmers I deal with whip something up, but if you have something close to it already it might not be worth it to have them do it.
Well, that's disappointing: I don't know what happened, but my output data isn't exactly the same as I got last time. I replaced some of the values (0.128 turned into 0.1, etc.), so I can't compare all data now. I was hoping to reproduce the same results, but also don't want to dive in deeper so I can't tell what went wrong. The numbers I checked were about 40% higher.
That being said, it's very clear there are much more "chips" with round numbers. I'll run the data again with a more complete data set, but it's going to take a while again.
Debugging software can be fun. :-)
And the things that take hours / days to run before giving an error are even more fun :-)
Or not.....
1 BTC chip = 20 shilling chips
1 shilling chip = 12 pence chips
1 pence chip = 2 halfpennies chips = 4 farthings chips
may use half and third and quaret farthings if BTC price go up
Yes, but just pointing out that at least with things like
BTC / crypto in general .01 or .0025 or anything like that just seems to be a bit more what people are expecting then 0.128
Not saying one is better then the other, just at least in my view it is what people are expecting.
-Dave