BitUSD, BitCNY <-> BTC pairs now available on BlockTrades.us

[karnal]

Awesome.

[dannotestein]

Also, any plans for BTC : BitBTC?

I took a look today, and the market does look viable enough to give us price discovery now, so we will likely add it soon.

[tbone]

@svk: coloring would be great .. give bitassets something premium, like a gold color and the other ones something less brilliant, like a gray/silver... just some thoughts

Yea I played around with coloring too, but it quickly becomes too much. Asset names are displayed in a lot of places and if we color them everywhere it quickly becomes messy, and if we only color them in some places it gets inconsistent.

Color coding is a nice thought but I agree that it will hurt in this instance as much as it helps.   On the other hand, displaying the prefix is definitely helpful.  Also, I think it's a great idea to use a smaller font for the prefix.   Although I would leave the dot between the prefix and the asset name for UIAs because it's actually more readable like that, not to mention more consistent, and also less confusing since BIT is really not a prefix in the same way OPEN and META are.

I like the smaller prefix on the bit assets (without the dots), but I would leave them as-is on UIAs (dots and no small prefix). Making them smaller on the bit assets makes plenty of sense, since the bit isn't part of the actual symbol (regardless of whether that was a good idea, that ship has sailed).

The asset name along with its prefix takes up a lot of space and the asset name itself doesn't stand out nearly as much as it could.  Presumably these are the reasons @svk removed the prefixes to begin with.  The suggestion by some to leave off the prefix but use color coding was another attempt to solve the problem.  But since that doesn't really work well either, @svk's idea to use a smaller font for the prefix is a smart compromise.  And it will help.  So I hope you won't derail it. 

[karnal]

Also, any plans for BTC : BitBTC?

[karnal]

First of, good job!! Excellent initiative to have BitBTC convertible to/from BitFiat.

When the spread is lower than 7% (!!!!) you'll have my business regularly!

[dannotestein]

@svk: coloring would be great .. give bitassets something premium, like a gold color and the other ones something less brilliant, like a gray/silver... just some thoughts

Yea I played around with coloring too, but it quickly becomes too much. Asset names are displayed in a lot of places and if we color them everywhere it quickly becomes messy, and if we only color them in some places it gets inconsistent.

Color coding is a nice thought but I agree that it will hurt in this instance as much as it helps.   On the other hand, displaying the prefix is definitely helpful.  Also, I think it's a great idea to use a smaller font for the prefix.   Although I would leave the dot between the prefix and the asset name for UIAs because it's actually more readable like that, not to mention more consistent, and also less confusing since BIT is really not a prefix in the same way OPEN and META are.

I like the smaller prefix on the bit assets (without the dots), but I would leave them as-is on UIAs (dots and no small prefix). Making them smaller on the bit assets makes plenty of sense, since the bit isn't part of the actual symbol (regardless of whether that was a good idea, that ship has sailed).

[tbone]

@svk: coloring would be great .. give bitassets something premium, like a gold color and the other ones something less brilliant, like a gray/silver... just some thoughts

Yea I played around with coloring too, but it quickly becomes too much. Asset names are displayed in a lot of places and if we color them everywhere it quickly becomes messy, and if we only color them in some places it gets inconsistent.

Color coding is a nice thought but I agree that it will hurt in this instance as much as it helps.   On the other hand, displaying the prefix is definitely helpful.  Also, I think it's a great idea to use a smaller font for the prefix.   Although I would leave the dot between the prefix and the asset name for UIAs because it's actually more readable like that, not to mention more consistent, and also less confusing since BIT is really not a prefix in the same way OPEN and META are. 

[svk]

@svk: coloring would be great .. give bitassets something premium, like a gold color and the other ones something less brilliant, like a gray/silver... just some thoughts

Yea I played around with coloring too, but it quickly becomes too much. Asset names are displayed in a lot of places and if we color them everywhere it quickly becomes messy, and if we only color them in some places it gets inconsistent.

[xeroc]

@svk: coloring would be great .. give bitassets something premium, like a gold color and the other ones something less brilliant, like a gray/silver... just some thoughts

[svk]

Another example, applied to OPEN. and TRADE. assets also:

[svk]

I suggest to not use names bitUSD and bitCNY (in dropdowns). Those smartcoins are available in wallet as USD and CNY. Do not confuse people even more.

I take a different view on this. In my opinion, the symbols in the wallet should have been BitUSD and BitCNY and not USD and CNY. They are not equivalent to USD or CNY (not exchangeable 1-1 in practice), so I think this is a much greater source of potential confusion. And in fact, all discussions of them on this forum refer to them as BitUSD and BitCNY. I actually originally thought that all Bit Asset symbols would be prefixed with Bit, but somewhere along the way this got lost during implementation.

I tend to agree with you here, and I actually played around with doing exactly this the other day. If there's consensus for doing so I could certainly make this change in the GUI.

Edit: Example of how it would look

[Bhuz]

I suggest to not use names bitUSD and bitCNY (in dropdowns). Those smartcoins are available in wallet as USD and CNY. Do not confuse people even more.

I take a different view on this. In my opinion, the symbols in the wallet should have been BitUSD and BitCNY and not USD and CNY. They are not equivalent to USD or CNY (not exchangeable 1-1 in practice), so I think this is a much greater source of potential confusion. And in fact, all discussions of them on this forum refer to them as BitUSD and BitCNY. I actually originally thought that all Bit Asset symbols would be prefixed with Bit, but somewhere along the way this got lost during implementation.

I suggest to not use names bitUSD and bitCNY (in dropdowns). Those smartcoins are available in wallet as USD and CNY. Do not confuse people even more.

I take a different view on this. In my opinion, the symbols in the wallet should have been BitUSD and BitCNY and not USD and CNY. They are not equivalent to USD or CNY (not exchangeable 1-1 in practice), so I think this is a much greater source of potential confusion. And in fact, all discussions of them on this forum refer to them as BitUSD and BitCNY. I actually originally thought that all Bit Asset symbols would be prefixed with Bit, but somewhere along the way this got lost during implementation.

THE MOST important thing is consistency. So they can be called superUSD, superCNY... or just plain symbols $... but they have to be called everywhere exactly the same.

If you're suggesting that we make them consistent by referring to them as Bit... in the wallet, I have no argument with that. It would probably solve problems like "what is OPEN.BTC versus BTC" we get from newbies, although I'm not sure it's worth the work involved. But if we use the wallet symbols in the bridge, I think it's likely to create a great deal of confusion if we refer to BitBTC as BTC, since we accept deposits of actual  BTC as well.

[dannotestein]

I suggest to not use names bitUSD and bitCNY (in dropdowns). Those smartcoins are available in wallet as USD and CNY. Do not confuse people even more.

I take a different view on this. In my opinion, the symbols in the wallet should have been BitUSD and BitCNY and not USD and CNY. They are not equivalent to USD or CNY (not exchangeable 1-1 in practice), so I think this is a much greater source of potential confusion. And in fact, all discussions of them on this forum refer to them as BitUSD and BitCNY. I actually originally thought that all Bit Asset symbols would be prefixed with Bit, but somewhere along the way this got lost during implementation.

THE MOST important thing is consistency. So they can be called superUSD, superCNY... or just plain symbols $... but they have to be called everywhere exactly the same.

If you're suggesting that we make them consistent by referring to them as Bit... in the wallet, I have no argument with that. It would probably solve problems like "what is OPEN.BTC versus BTC" we get from newbies, although I'm not sure it's worth the work involved. But if we use the wallet symbols in the bridge, I think it's likely to create a great deal of confusion if we refer to BitBTC as BTC, since we accept deposits of actual  BTC as well.

[noisy]

I suggest to not use names bitUSD and bitCNY (in dropdowns). Those smartcoins are available in wallet as USD and CNY. Do not confuse people even more.

I take a different view on this. In my opinion, the symbols in the wallet should have been BitUSD and BitCNY and not USD and CNY. They are not equivalent to USD or CNY (not exchangeable 1-1 in practice), so I think this is a much greater source of potential confusion. And in fact, all discussions of them on this forum refer to them as BitUSD and BitCNY. I actually originally thought that all Bit Asset symbols would be prefixed with Bit, but somewhere along the way this got lost during implementation.

THE MOST important thing is consistency. So they can be called superUSD, superCNY... or just plain symbols $... but they have to be called everywhere exactly the same.

[dannotestein]

I suggest to not use names bitUSD and bitCNY (in dropdowns). Those smartcoins are available in wallet as USD and CNY. Do not confuse people even more.

I take a different view on this. In my opinion, the symbols in the wallet should have been BitUSD and BitCNY and not USD and CNY. They are not equivalent to USD or CNY (not exchangeable 1-1 in practice), so I think this is a much greater source of potential confusion. And in fact, all discussions of them on this forum refer to them as BitUSD and BitCNY. I actually originally thought that all Bit Asset symbols would be prefixed with Bit, but somewhere along the way this got lost during implementation.