Quote from: R2D221 on October 22, 2014, 12:02:03 AM

Quote

Quote from: Biodom on October 21, 2014, 10:58:49 PM

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.

OK. First, he says that Bitcoin = Bitcoin so that we don't cause confusion. Then, he says that 8 decimal places are still confusing for common people, and that the working group will recommend Bitcoin subunits.

I don't see how that's a contradiction. He still wants to maintain Bitcoin as the main currency, just not use the 8 decimal places as the common subunit.

We still get to name it, but try not to pick a confusing name. Why is that so hard?

Matonis : "One XBT unit as listed and recorded within ISO 4217 would have eight subunits or decimal places to the right of the decimal point."
Bitcoin Foundation: "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."

If you put two and two together, basically, Bitcoin Foundation says that proposed by Matonis XBT format WILL BE confusing to consumers, and instead, they propose a main unit and a subunit (with implied 1:100 ratio). This is there in black and white, so I don't understand your argument.