BIP 143: Unify coin unit #496

pull azuchi wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from azuchi:bip143-unify-coin-unit changing 1 files +1 −1

azuchi commented at 7:29 AM on February 19, 2017: contributor
In the example of BIP 143, the unit of coin output only 'No FindAndDelete' is described with satoshi. so changed it to the value of BTC unit according to other examples.
```
scriptPubKey : 00209e1be07558ea5cc8e02ed1d80c0911048afad949affa36d5c3951e3159dbea19, value: 200000
```
change to
```
scriptPubKey : 00209e1be07558ea5cc8e02ed1d80c0911048afad949affa36d5c3951e3159dbea19, value: 0.00200000
```
BIP 143: Unify coin unit b2b24b5393
luke-jr added the label Proposed BIP modification on Feb 19, 2017
luke-jr commented at 9:13 AM on February 19, 2017: member

@jl2012 @sipa

(IMO it should be the other way around, since we're dealing with low-level stuff here)
jonathancross commented at 7:31 PM on November 6, 2017: contributor

I agree with @luke-jr – using values denominated in satoshi would make more sense in this context.
murchandamus commented at 6:49 PM on April 23, 2024: contributor

@sipa: It seems reasonable that the amounts should either be BTC or sats across the document. What do you think?
murchandamus assigned sipa on Apr 23, 2024
sipa commented at 6:56 PM on April 23, 2024: member

ACK b2b24b53935544f45188fbe1ae8701074b8cc9f6

The current document uses amounts inconsistently, and this change makes it consistent. While I agree that using sats throughout would be even better, that shouldn't hold up this improvement. The specified hex inputs to the hash function in the examples are (obviously) in sats, so I don't think it's too bad.
murchandamus merged this on Apr 23, 2024
murchandamus closed this on Apr 23, 2024

Contributors

Labels

Proposed BIP modification