Topic: 1,000,000 bits = 1 bitcoin. Future-proofing Bitcoin for common usage? VOTE - page 17. (Read 57144 times)
May 05, 2014, 12:00:14 AM
Smaller denominations will drive the value up IMO. And I don't like "satoshi" b/c it doesn't sound global.
May 04, 2014, 10:02:08 PM
but during the last 12 months the question keeps arising "Is another unit best for common usage?"
It only keeps arising because people like you bring it up repeatedly, and you are a Hero Member who should know better.It is not going to happen EVER and if you don't like it, start a new shitcoin like all the other fools out there.
May 04, 2014, 09:10:33 PM
I guess the problem with an open source item is that everyone has to have their opinion and their opinion has to be better than anyone else's.
bits works. Implement it!
bits works. Implement it!
May 04, 2014, 08:01:25 PM
You people need more imagination !!! 
How about coinbit (cb for short ):
1 BTC = 1 Bitcoin = 1 000 000 coinbit = 1 000 000 cb
0.001 BTC = 1 mBTC = 1 000 coinbit = 1 000 cb
0.000 001 BTC = 1 uBTC = 1 coinbit = 1 cb
0.000 000 01 BTC = 1 satoshi = 0.01 coinbit = 1 ccb
How about coinbit (cb for short ):
1 BTC = 1 Bitcoin = 1 000 000 coinbit = 1 000 000 cb
0.001 BTC = 1 mBTC = 1 000 coinbit = 1 000 cb
0.000 001 BTC = 1 uBTC = 1 coinbit = 1 cb
0.000 000 01 BTC = 1 satoshi = 0.01 coinbit = 1 ccb
May 04, 2014, 07:48:13 PM
C. "That'll be 50 uBTC please."
D. "That'll be 50 bits please."
A and B are eliminated right off the bat because nobody wants to recall how many zeroes they've put after the decimal.
This leaves us with reasonable C and D, but the word "bit" is far more marketable than "micro-BTC". Micro-BTC just doesn't roll off the tongue like bits does.
I agree that "microbitcoin" is cumbersome to say. However, the natural way of dealing with a long, frequently used word is to shorten it, not replace it. Some examples:
- application -> app
- information -> info
- laboratory -> lab
- maximum -> max
- university -> uni
"That'll be 50 microbitcoins please." -> "That'll be 50 mics please."
May 04, 2014, 07:37:58 PM
Even paying 11,500 bits for a 64-bit cpu chip is not really confusing.
In your example, perhaps. Another Example: "Can my 256 megabit flash drive still hold my wallet with 300 million bits"?
You guys are pushing something that would make the matter more confusing than it ought to be.
Bitpay wants to call it "bit", then coinbase would want to call it "coin", then Kraken would want to call it.....
You need to come up with something different. Call it ubit if you want.
Humans are pretty good at distinguishing different uses of the same word in different contexts. The confusion you mention wouldn't happen much, and if it did it's an easy question to answer.
On the other hand computers are terrible at making contextual leaps like this, and the idea of adding a new meaning to XBT, which is already being used in systems that would have to handle the new meaning, is a thoroughly terrible one.
May 04, 2014, 06:55:13 PM
Even paying 11,500 bits for a 64-bit cpu chip is not really confusing.
In your example, perhaps. Another Example: "Can my 256 megabit flash drive still hold my wallet with 300 million bits"?
You guys are pushing something that would make the matter more confusing than it ought to be.
Bitpay wants to call it "bit", then coinbase would want to call it "coin", then Kraken would want to call it.....
You need to come up with something different. Call it ubit if you want.
May 04, 2014, 06:34:11 PM
If you look at my post history on this subject you would find that I mostly thought the idea of any renaming was stupid and not needed.
That is, until I started talking to people and did run into "Bitcoins are way too expensive" over and over again.
Logically it makes no sense but I could sell a boatload of bits at 2500 bits per dollar to the general public and could see the price rising pretty quickly to 1000 bits per dollar over the next few months.
It is not logical but I have come to the conclusion that the general public is not logical when it comes to money.
When introduced to the idea "1 bit = 100 satoshi", without exception, everyone I have talked to has just lit up, understood it and are now running with the idea to all their friends.
That is how you accomplish this. Just do it. Everyone will thank you later.
1 XBT = 1 bit = 100 satoshis
1 BTC = 1000000 XBT = shorthand used in larger transactions
That is, until I started talking to people and did run into "Bitcoins are way too expensive" over and over again.
Logically it makes no sense but I could sell a boatload of bits at 2500 bits per dollar to the general public and could see the price rising pretty quickly to 1000 bits per dollar over the next few months.
It is not logical but I have come to the conclusion that the general public is not logical when it comes to money.
When introduced to the idea "1 bit = 100 satoshi", without exception, everyone I have talked to has just lit up, understood it and are now running with the idea to all their friends.
That is how you accomplish this. Just do it. Everyone will thank you later.
1 XBT = 1 bit = 100 satoshis
1 BTC = 1000000 XBT = shorthand used in larger transactions
100% agreed with this and D&T's considered opinion too.
While a lot of people like the idea of this change some are concerned about the choice of "bit". The reality is that the simplest terms win out and there is no single term which everyone would like. In practice "bits" would be seen most often, especially while 1 bit is below the dust threshold. Even paying 11,500 bits for a 64-bit cpu chip is not really confusing.
May 04, 2014, 06:14:20 PM
If you look at my post history on this subject you would find that I mostly thought the idea of any renaming was stupid and not needed.
That is, until I started talking to people and did run into "Bitcoins are way too expensive" over and over again.
Logically it makes no sense but I could sell a boatload of bits at 2500 bits per dollar to the general public and could see the price rising pretty quickly to 1000 bits per dollar over the next few months.
It is not logical but I have come to the conclusion that the general public is not logical when it comes to money.
When introduced to the idea "1 bit = 100 satoshi", without exception, everyone I have talked to has just lit up, understood it and are now running with the idea to all their friends.
That is how you accomplish this. Just do it. Everyone will thank you later.
1 XBT = 1 bit = 100 satoshis
1 BTC = 1000000 XBT = shorthand used in larger transactions
That is, until I started talking to people and did run into "Bitcoins are way too expensive" over and over again.
Logically it makes no sense but I could sell a boatload of bits at 2500 bits per dollar to the general public and could see the price rising pretty quickly to 1000 bits per dollar over the next few months.
It is not logical but I have come to the conclusion that the general public is not logical when it comes to money.
When introduced to the idea "1 bit = 100 satoshi", without exception, everyone I have talked to has just lit up, understood it and are now running with the idea to all their friends.
That is how you accomplish this. Just do it. Everyone will thank you later.
1 XBT = 1 bit = 100 satoshis
1 BTC = 1000000 XBT = shorthand used in larger transactions
May 04, 2014, 03:53:26 PM
1 bit should be 100 satoshis with release 1.0 of Bitcoin Core.
How about just a Bit?
EDIT: to also propose the suggestion Bbit (pronounce "bee bit") and to second the suggestion of bitbit.
And just a random suggestion, perhaps the new unit name should belong to the 0.0001 denomination (cent of a cent). We'll go through fewer names that way, less confusion. The most useful significant digits will all remain near the decimal point (four to the left, four to the right of it), it could be the only new name we ever need.
I am not sure that SI patterns or prefixes are the way to go. I occasionally use SI in regular speech just to be geeky (example, I like to say 5 "kilodollars" instead of 5 "grand"), and people look at me like I'm nuts and often don't even know what I mean, even though it should be obvious. No one seems to expect to see money measured like kilograms or millimeters.
Beyond the currently accepted "satoshi", I don't feel fond of honorary names ("gav" etc.), these seem like they could be a turnoff.
EDIT: to also propose the suggestion Bbit (pronounce "bee bit") and to second the suggestion of bitbit.
And just a random suggestion, perhaps the new unit name should belong to the 0.0001 denomination (cent of a cent). We'll go through fewer names that way, less confusion. The most useful significant digits will all remain near the decimal point (four to the left, four to the right of it), it could be the only new name we ever need.
I am not sure that SI patterns or prefixes are the way to go. I occasionally use SI in regular speech just to be geeky (example, I like to say 5 "kilodollars" instead of 5 "grand"), and people look at me like I'm nuts and often don't even know what I mean, even though it should be obvious. No one seems to expect to see money measured like kilograms or millimeters.
Beyond the currently accepted "satoshi", I don't feel fond of honorary names ("gav" etc.), these seem like they could be a turnoff.
May 04, 2014, 02:29:20 PM
This desire to turn Satoshis into pennies for the sixth spot seems very arbitrary to me. You end up creating very large numbers for Bits, whereas by using the fourth place you always keep numbers at 10,000 or less. That makes it easier to work with over a longer period of time.
I'm just saying that choosing the sixth spot is exactly not arbitrary, but for a very good reason.
May 04, 2014, 02:22:58 PM
Lastly (and this is the big one for me) there is a LOT of legacy financial software and they have limits on the scope of values that can be entered, including exchange rates. Most accounting software can't handle exchange rates for Bitcoins either in Satoshis or in whole Bitcoins.
Then the logical thing to do is not to use such software rather than butcher bitcoin in the hopes you'll be able to use such software with it.
That is a dubious claim to make. If the end game is widescale adoption of Bitcoin we are talking about hundreds of millions of merchants many of which are not technologically savy. They have existing systems and the idea that a twenty year old company is going to throw out their highly customized accounting software just to adopt Bitcoin is a pipedream. If they can't adopt it easily they simply won't.
The idea that pricing standardizes around uBTC and adopts a common language term of "bits" will "butcher" Bitcoin is well the best hyperbole I have heard today.
May 04, 2014, 02:22:15 PM
Bits should be designated as the FOURTH decimal place since it's the midpoint between Bitcoins and Satoshis.
The sixth place lacks symmetry vis-a-vis the already accepted and undisputed designations of Bitcoin and Satoshi. Why would you go so far into the decimal places to split the range like this when you have a midpoint staring you in the face?
When you have a major denomination at the midpoint, then you maximize the efficiency of the numbers. You'll never have to deal with a number greater than 10,000 when you are to the right of the decimal. A Bit would be 10,000 Satoshis, and a Bitcoin would be 10,000 Bits.
Isn't this more intuitive and natural?
The sixth place lacks symmetry vis-a-vis the already accepted and undisputed designations of Bitcoin and Satoshi. Why would you go so far into the decimal places to split the range like this when you have a midpoint staring you in the face?
When you have a major denomination at the midpoint, then you maximize the efficiency of the numbers. You'll never have to deal with a number greater than 10,000 when you are to the right of the decimal. A Bit would be 10,000 Satoshis, and a Bitcoin would be 10,000 Bits.
Isn't this more intuitive and natural?
The whole point is not about symmetry or aesthetics. The reason for this specific decimal place is so that 100 Satoshis are 1.00 bit. So that a bit has 2 decimal places which is imperative if you want to be compatible with established financial processing software, because basically any currency has 2 decimal places.
I didn't say it was "about" symmetry. I said you maximize the efficiency of the numbers at the midpoint. We already have the endpoints established with accepted names. The fact that it's symmetrical just makes it easier to understand and convey to others. You can simply memorize "The Rule of Ten Thousand," and you can convert all this stuff in your head. It's simpler and more intuitive.
This desire to turn Satoshis into pennies for the sixth spot seems very arbitrary to me. You end up creating very large numbers for Bits, whereas by using the fourth place you always keep numbers at 10,000 or less. That makes it easier to work with over a longer period of time.
May 04, 2014, 02:20:33 PM
Some people already call uBTC microbits. Why is this so hard for some people to understand? It's like me proposing that we call a cent a dollar. Do you think that would be a good idea or a completely stupid idea?
If microbits was already widely and nearly universally adopted like the terms "dollars" and "cents" are, then yes they would both be similar dumb ideas. However microbits doesn't exactly flow in everyday conversation and microbitcoins is even worse. Writing either one is excessive and uBTC is hardly natural to the average person. There is a reason that current units are generally short (dollars, euros, yen, yuan, franks, etc). The words are used everyday billions of times and most languages adopt/evolve so the more commonly used words are shorter, easier, simpler. It is just more efficient. They are words used by every person on the planet regardless of education, language skills, intelligence, etc. Bitcoin is even more of a challenge as most people only need to know and use their local currency but Bitcoin could potentially transcend national barriers and become widely known to a huge portion of the planet.
uBTC, microbits, and microbitcoins have never been universally adopted and this is (I believe) this is because they are socially awkward. The "issue" is a social/language one, not a technical one. People will adopt what they feel the most comfortable with, not what would make the most technical sense. Based on polls and anecdotes it would appear people are comfortables with "bits". There is value in terms being widely adopted (similar to Metcalfe's law).
May 04, 2014, 02:18:03 PM
Lastly (and this is the big one for me) there is a LOT of legacy financial software and they have limits on the scope of values that can be entered, including exchange rates. Most accounting software can't handle exchange rates for Bitcoins either in Satoshis or in whole Bitcoins.
Then the logical thing to do is not to use such software rather than butcher bitcoin in the hopes you'll be able to use such software with it.
May 04, 2014, 02:10:43 PM
Why can't 1 bit = 1 Satoshi?
It "can" however there are some advantages of using uBTC instead.
The first is that it reduces the number of excessive zeroes to the right of the significant digit by two. 12,500 bits vs 1,2500,000 satoshis.
The second is that the idea that people hate decimals is a falsehood. Most currency systems used today have two to four decimal places. $1.24 for example. It actually helps the mind distinguish between the high value and low value numbers. For example someone can say yeah that GPU is $500 that is insane and nobody is confused by the absence of the cents. On the other hand if the USD system used cents as its base unit it would be more like that GPU is 50,000 cents. Having a decimal place allows short hand in common usage and language. How much was your cruise. Oh about $1,400 (vs 140,000 cents) while still allowing smaller pricing where it matters. The components we need are $1.87 ea if purchased in 100 or more units.
Lastly (and this is the big one for me) there is a LOT of legacy financial software and they have limits on the scope of values that can be entered, including exchange rates. Most accounting software can't handle exchange rates for Bitcoins either in Satoshis or in whole Bitcoins. Given the other two factors uBTC is a good place to start. As Bitcoin gets larger and attracts more merchants these will be people who are not diehard "believers" but rather using Bitcoin because it is an effective tool. If it can't easily integrated with their existing tools then it isn't as effective and they may simply not adopt it.
From a technical perspective either would work (and so would using whole Bitcoins).
May 04, 2014, 02:02:43 PM
Renaming "microbit" to "bit" is pure insanity.
I see it more like dollars vs bucks.
That will be a buck thirty eight. That will be a bit thirty eight.
If bits is used as a colloquial there isn't anything that prevents someone to be more formal and write out uBTC. It isn't so much an issue with metric. The issue with US conversion of metric has less to do with SI prefixes and more to do with a need to change base units. Americans are comfortable with gallons, feet, ounces, etc. If it far easier to memorize that a kilogram has 1000 grams and a kilometer has 1000 meters than try to remember all the insane conversions (how many ounces to a cup, pints to a gallon, pounds to a ton, etc). It was the change in the base unit which was "fought".
American bashing aside (which is always popular), most Americans use SI prefixes everyday, and many do it without even knowing. Kilobytes, Megahertz, Killowatt hours, etc.
Some people already call uBTC microbits. Why is this so hard for some people to understand? It's like me proposing that we call a cent a dollar. Do you think that would be a good idea or a completely stupid idea?
May 04, 2014, 02:02:10 PM
May 04, 2014, 01:53:09 PM
The term "bit" is an excellent equivalent for "meters". A bitcoin would be the full measurement of bits. A satoshi would be 100 bits. But in day-to-day talk, we would talk about bits. "This cold beer cost me 25 bits!"
So no. It's not US ignorance.
a bit will be 100satoshis
hahaha! yeah. Like the guy insulting Americans was saying, I'm ignorant! I guess I could call it an "error de dedo" though!
I wasn't insulting Americans. They *are* ignorant of the metric system and SI units. That's not an insult. Everyone is ignorant about of a lot of things. Ignorance doesn't mean stupid, it just mean lack of knowledge. If you don't know about some topic then you are ignorant about that topic.
May 04, 2014, 01:52:28 PM
Renaming "microbit" to "bit" is pure insanity.
I see it more like dollars vs bucks.
That will be a buck thirty eight. That will be a bit thirty eight.
If bits is used as a colloquial there isn't anything that prevents someone to be more formal and write out uBTC. It isn't so much an issue with metric. The issue with US conversion of metric has less to do with SI prefixes and more to do with a need to change base units. Americans are comfortable with gallons, feet, ounces, etc. If it far easier to memorize that a kilogram has 1000 grams and a kilometer has 1000 meters than try to remember all the insane conversions (how many ounces to a cup, pints to a gallon, pounds to a ton, etc). It was the change in the base unit which was "fought".
American bashing aside (which is always popular), most Americans use SI prefixes everyday, and many do it without even knowing. Kilobytes, Megahertz, Killowatt hours, etc.
Jump to: