the SI prefixes. People *do* use 63k USD, $63k, and $3M. I'll be the first
one
As a counter argument, many sources (including the BBC) abbreviate
million to 'm' (and billion to 'bn'), e.g. $3m, $3bn.
I think any similarity with SI units here is coincidental.
roy
Context as a disambiguator works fine when the interlocutors
understand the topics they're talking about.
Not a day goes by without me seeing neurotypical people get horribly
confused between RAM and Hard Drive sizes, because they share the same
units (not that that can be helped, as the units are
Excellent points Christophe!
Although moving to 1e-6 units is fine for me and I see advantages of doing
this, I don't get that people on this mailing list are fine with calling
such unit bit. It's geeky as hell, ambiguous and confusing.
slush
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Christophe Biocca
bit has a lot of meanings to geeks, so what.
bit means for average people:
- something very small, that 100 satoshi is.
- part of the name Bitcoin
- easy to get conversion 1 coin = 1 million bits = 1 Bitcoin
Regards,
Tamas Blummer
Founder, CEO
http://bitsofproof.com
On 03.05.2014, at 18:02,
I agree with the sentiment that most people don't understand either computer
science or Bitcoin. The goal of getting people to understand enough about
Bitcoin to use it is achievable and a goal that is in scope of our efforts.
Getting them to understand computer science at large at the same
Can someone enlighten me on why the following transaction is being rejected
by Bitcoind 0.9.1 with error code -22 on Mainnet.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
The standard format ended up being exactly:
OP_RETURN 0 to 40-byte PUSHDATA
You've split the data across two PUSHDATA's. The standard should have let the
data be split up like that; pull requests accepted.
On 3 May 2014 13:04:52 GMT-05:00,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03.05.2014 02:54, Ben Davenport wrote:
No one quotes amounts as 63 k$ or 3 M$. The accepted standard at
least in the US is currency-symbolamountmodifier, i.e. $63k
or $3M.
As you said, that's in the US, and I strongly suspect the sole reason
I don't think such a pull request would be accepted. The point was to
minimize impact to the block chain. Each extras txout adds 9 bytes
minimum, with zero benefit over serializing the data together in a
single OP_RETURN.
On 05/03/2014 11:39 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
The standard format ended up
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote:
I don't think such a pull request would be accepted. The point was to
minimize impact to the block chain. Each extras txout adds 9 bytes
minimum, with zero benefit over serializing the data together in a
single
Is it more complex? The current implementation using template matching
seems more complex than `if script.vch[0] == OP_RETURN
script.vch.size() 42`
On 05/03/2014 12:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Mark Friedenbach m...@monetize.io wrote:
I don't think such a
This idea was suggested by Joe on 2011-02-14
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3441.msg48484#msg48484 . It
deserves another look.
Nodes today make a judgment regarding which of several conflicting
spends to accept, and which is a double-spend. But there is no
incorporation of these
Absent a concerted effort to move to something else other than 'bits', I
would be willing to bet the nomenclature moves in that direction anyway.
'Bits' is just a shorten word for 'millibits' (or microbits, if you
will). It's easier to say and my guess is people would tend to use it
naturally own
losew...@gmail.com
losew...@gmail.com
--
Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. Get
unparalleled scalability from
Unfortunately this could fork the network permanently, which is much
worse than a double spend. There's no magic way to have a consensus,
so it becomes trivial with a few tries to split the network into two
halves: (tx1 before tx2, tx2 before tx1). Some nodes in the middle
will accept either
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Flavien Charlon
flavien.char...@coinprism.com wrote:
Outputs are above dust, inputs are not spent. OP_RETURN is supposed to be
standard in 0.9.1 and the data is well below 40 bytes, so why is this being
rejected?
The carried data must all be contained within one
+1
On 4 May 2014 02:06, Chris Pacia ctpa...@gmail.com wrote:
Absent a concerted effort to move to something else other than 'bits', I
would be willing to bet the nomenclature moves in that direction anyway.
'Bits' is just a shorten word for 'millibits' (or microbits, if you
will). It's easier
17 matches
Mail list logo
