Topic: 1,000,000 bits = 1 bitcoin. Future-proofing Bitcoin for common usage? VOTE - page 21. (Read 57137 times)

above is proof of poor people that want to shout to the world "i finally have one bitcoin"

so me, having so much more will be the first to laugh at them and say

"no sonny, your still poor you only have 100 satoshi's"

calling such a low number a bitcoin is only something the poor will want, to appear richer without actually bothering to earn 100m satoshi's
so please give it a break with that silly idea.. a bitcoin is a bitcoin..

it looks like the consensus is to skip mBTC and uBTC measurements. so the only question is what do we call 100sat.

do we go with 1bit or give it another name.. i think 1zib is weird and wrong as it has no relevance and looks alien in regards to crypto.
so what other suggestions are there for 100sat's
so far 1bit is in the lead, and unless someone comes up with another word the consensus will stick with 1bit.

i personally have these in mind for 100sat's:
1gav (in honour of gavin A's 3 years of hard work as lead developer/scientist so far)
1alp (in honour of the alpaca socks (first legit merchant))

now show us some gray matter movement and get some good idea's going instead of this endless repetition of a 3day old arguement

This is the best solution to me also.

1 BTC = 100 satoshis (instead of 100M)
1 current BTC becomes 1 MBTC (megabitcoin) if needed in the adjustment period.

Exchanges might use rate for 1.000 BTC (1kBTC) = $0.444 or 1 MBTC = $444

What do you think about that? We can continue to use the existing name (bitcoin) and symbol.

1 coffee = 9,123 bitcoins


I don't see the need to introduce new names/symbols like bits. People will quickly adopt to the new meaning (value) of bitcoin.

Pure genius! A brilliant solution!

for me it makes sense to use "bit" as a further meaning for the economic world.

we will have 21,000,000 bit-coins which consists of 21,000,000,000,000 bits which consits of 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshis.

1 bit = 100 satoshis which are 0.00045$ at the moment.

nice!  

Just use the Satoshi... Bits is messy as it already have very common use case.

Why change it to bits?  Because you just explained the same thing in 3 different ways, μBTC, MicroBitcoin and uBit.

Thanks!
I think I read somewhere that pirate vikings sometimes cut up their gold coins to divide up their loot - it makes sense somehow.

Thanks

I like Dennis07's work as well.
Btw, he made a thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/proposed-shape-for-the-bits-symbol-is-a-square-and-to-keep-the-gold-color-594069 for discussion about it.

we need the "bit" period!

We're all specialists and generalists - I an expert (at least I think I am) on what my neighbours and co-workers can understand; I know nothing about you, your neighbours or co-workers' preferences or abilities. My point is that we don't know - we can't know at anything other than a basic level - what will be most readily understood and utilised by everyone else. What's simple for you and me to understand will not necessarily be readily understood by someone else - 10^3 seems simple to me because I grew up with thousands, millions, and billions, with kilometres and millimetres and terabytes. But that's not universal; there are counting systems that use other exponents, even systems that mix their exponents. Even within the Bitcoin ecosystem there are already different systems, systems that in some cases have evolved organically. My way is not any more valid than their way. I'm (currently) free to use whatever system suits me (and, to be honest, the system that suits me most varies with whatever activity I'm engaged in - when (!) I buy an island I won't be using Satoshis or µBTC.

The OP's proposal may well lead to greater understanding of Bitcoin within a group of people. What concerns me is that this group is undefined and - more importantly - the disadvantages to other groups (of a change) are not being considered. I got involved in Bitcoin because it held out the promise of freedom from centralised control (this was a few years after centralised control over my finances became a major issue in the country I was living in). I see this issue as seeking to impose (by us) change over the wider community, in the name of convenience. Just because I have a chance to hold the whip doesn't make it any more palatable.

I vote for @DennisD7
Very impressive, very easy to understand.

I very much like the circle and square difference.
A circle seems more valuable to me than a square.

This is just amazing to see: a community collective deciding on how to quantify a currency and how to brand it.  Imagine explaining this to someone 20 years ago.

@gjeric and @DennisD7 great work!

 

Agreed, it's non-trivial.

The bitcoin situation here is rather different; it's not about specialists vs generalists, it's about money, something that should be readily understood and utilised by both specialists and generalists, for all age groups and nationalities and as many levels of numeracy as possible.

Made some ideas for Bit symbol

Because it has non-trivial ramifications.

The classic (at least in IT) example is of a nuclear power plant where the board comprises a few specialist (nuclear physicists) and many generalists (administrators, managers, etc). Discussion about important issues -  safety, etc - is edged out by discussion about less important issues. That's certainly a risk here, but far more importantly is - if the generalists succeed in forcing change it will impact on the specialists - and the community at large.

Too late to do that, people are already using XBT in systems.

Feel free to make a new code, though. XBI?

with all due respect, since you think it's trivial why do you keep posting?