Topic: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? - page 2. (Read 6546 times)
titbit
0.0001 BTC
Lets call it 10,000 Satoshis
that's exactly what it is 10,000sat or 10ksat
hemicro coin 
Hehto-micro bitcoin for 0.000 100
deka-micro bitcoin or demicro for 0.000 010
Also for:
hehto-milli bitcoin 0.100 hemill
deka-milli bitcoin 0.010 demill
And then:
hehto-nano 0.000 000 100 hena
deka-nano 0.000 000 010 dena
Hehto-micro bitcoin for 0.000 100
deka-micro bitcoin or demicro for 0.000 010
Also for:
hehto-milli bitcoin 0.100 hemill
deka-milli bitcoin 0.010 demill
And then:
hehto-nano 0.000 000 100 hena
deka-nano 0.000 000 010 dena
I privately call it a "bitmilray."
Ok we call it a litecoin.
I think too many people are coming from an Anglo-centric viewpoint.
To me, those suggesting anything but SI units might as well be advocating Imperial units.
To me, those suggesting anything but SI units might as well be advocating Imperial units.
I believe a name will eventually appear out of the blue and just click. We shouldn't be looking for one. I bet there wasn't any meeting to decide the name for nickels or dimes.
Thank you... These things just stick out of popular usage, which never, ever can be dictated.
So far I've seen the following trends stick out in popular usage:
0.1 = one bitdime
0.05 = one bitnickle
0.01 = one bitcent (or bitpenny)
0.0001 = one millibitcoin
0.00000001 = one satoshi
Excepting for the last two (Which were introduced by the head coders) these have something important in common that all languages have in common:
An existing, familiar concept. (Pennies look like 0.01 to the layman)
What does 0.000001 look like to the layman? That's what's going to catch on.
I agree with bitbank.
Using names is plain silly. We need something that the public can understand and feel comfortable using, not some World of Warcraft style.... guild or something.
For my own suggestion:
Centibit
Millibit
Microbit
Nanobit
Satoshi - only acceptable as it's already in use and being the smallest it's easy to remember.
Sez you?
Using names is plain silly. We need something that the public can understand and feel comfortable using, not some World of Warcraft style.... guild or something.
For my own suggestion:
Centibit
Millibit
Microbit
Nanobit
Satoshi - only acceptable as it's already in use and being the smallest it's easy to remember.
Sez you?
Naming denominations after people is the most asinine idea I've ever heard. It's almost like you guys WANT bitcoin to bask in obscurity.
So calling it 10 Nanobitcoins instead of 1 Satoshi is a better idea?
Naming denominations after people is the most asinine idea I've ever heard. It's almost like you guys WANT bitcoin to bask in obscurity.
Cross post from other thread:
Why Finney and not Hal? Gavin and Satoshi are first names, but Finney is a last name. I think if we are going to use names, we should use them consistently.I definitely think new names would reduce the chance of confounding denominations, as well as make handling smaller amounts of BTC much simpler.
Additionally those new names should not have the same sound to them, as that also facilitates confusion when two parties negotiate over price or when you send funds.
Third, in this stage of bitcoin, it seems futile to me to try press names into a scheme mirroring the Dollar-Cents relationship, because we have no idea where the valuation of bitcoin will end up in 1, 2, 5 years from now.
It might make more sense to use first names of people that heavily contributed to the bitcoin ecosystem (as in 1 Satoshi), in steps of 1000 as that is the scheme every SI unit generally follows. For all practical purposes the "cent" denominations can be added to the main denomination like so:
My official proposal:
1 Bitcoin, == 100 Bitcoincent (or 1 Bitcent),
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 Gavin (or Gav for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 00 Gavincent (or Gavcent)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 Finney (or Fin for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 00 Finneycent (=Fincent, or Satoshi)
Pairs: Bitcoin/Bitcoincent, Gavin/Gavincent, Finney/Finneycents(Satoshis)
Advantage of that scheme is, that whatever the current valuation of bitcoin, you can always use bitcoin in the familiar way you handle the Dollar/cents pair.
So eg use Bitcoin/Bitcents for denominations of Bitcoin < 100$, Gavin/Gavincents for denominations of Bitcoin at 100$ and above, and later at maybe around 10k USD use Finneys/Finneycents(Satoshis).
Additionally those new names should not have the same sound to them, as that also facilitates confusion when two parties negotiate over price or when you send funds.
Third, in this stage of bitcoin, it seems futile to me to try press names into a scheme mirroring the Dollar-Cents relationship, because we have no idea where the valuation of bitcoin will end up in 1, 2, 5 years from now.
It might make more sense to use first names of people that heavily contributed to the bitcoin ecosystem (as in 1 Satoshi), in steps of 1000 as that is the scheme every SI unit generally follows. For all practical purposes the "cent" denominations can be added to the main denomination like so:
My official proposal:
1 Bitcoin, == 100 Bitcoincent (or 1 Bitcent),
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 Gavin (or Gav for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 00 Gavincent (or Gavcent)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 Finney (or Fin for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 00 Finneycent (=Fincent, or Satoshi)
Pairs: Bitcoin/Bitcoincent, Gavin/Gavincent, Finney/Finneycents(Satoshis)
Advantage of that scheme is, that whatever the current valuation of bitcoin, you can always use bitcoin in the familiar way you handle the Dollar/cents pair.
So eg use Bitcoin/Bitcents for denominations of Bitcoin < 100$, Gavin/Gavincents for denominations of Bitcoin at 100$ and above, and later at maybe around 10k USD use Finneys/Finneycents(Satoshis).
Your system has units with 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 zeros. Why not 2, 4, 6, 8? This would be much simpler and easier to understand.
Finally, you say it's your “official proposal”. What makes this official, compared to the other proposals in this forum?
1) I went with Finney because I like the two syllable sound of it. Consistently using first names would be nicer, I agree with you there. We cound make that a Hal
2) The denominations come naturally when you descend down in steps of 10^3, name the units and add a cent denomination. Ie:
1 Bitcoin
1 Gavin (1/1000 Bitcoin)
1 Finney (1/1000 Gavin) (or a Hal)
Very clear and distinct for my feeling. Now to add some ease in handling these units, you add cents to each of them:
1 Bitcent (1/100 Bitcoin)
1 Gavincent (1/100 Gavin),
1 Finneycent (1/100 Finney), or also called Satoshi
That would make it nicely fit our familiarity with fiat denominations at whatever bitcoins trading range is atm.
3) Official means "my official" proposal, for what it's worth
i like bit or mid for the 0.0001btc
it sounds good and short enough to work prefix like bitcent/midcent or kilobit/kilomid
it sounds good and short enough to work prefix like bitcent/midcent or kilobit/kilomid
I call 0.0001 BTC a "virtue". The term arose by misunderstanding on reddit.
.1 BTC= decibit
.01 BTC = centibit
.001 BTC = miliBit
.0001 BTC = squaredcentibit (.01 * .01).
Simple
SI doesn't have name for all positions. Just for 1000^n, and the exceptions of deci/deca and centi/hecto. .01 BTC = centibit
.001 BTC = miliBit
.0001 BTC = squaredcentibit (.01 * .01).
Simple
Cross post from other thread:
Why Finney and not Hal? Gavin and Satoshi are first names, but Finney is a last name. I think if we are going to use names, we should use them consistently.I definitely think new names would reduce the chance of confounding denominations, as well as make handling smaller amounts of BTC much simpler.
Additionally those new names should not have the same sound to them, as that also facilitates confusion when two parties negotiate over price or when you send funds.
Third, in this stage of bitcoin, it seems futile to me to try press names into a scheme mirroring the Dollar-Cents relationship, because we have no idea where the valuation of bitcoin will end up in 1, 2, 5 years from now.
It might make more sense to use first names of people that heavily contributed to the bitcoin ecosystem (as in 1 Satoshi), in steps of 1000 as that is the scheme every SI unit generally follows. For all practical purposes the "cent" denominations can be added to the main denomination like so:
My official proposal:
1 Bitcoin, == 100 Bitcoincent (or 1 Bitcent),
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 Gavin (or Gav for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 00 Gavincent (or Gavcent)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 Finney (or Fin for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 00 Finneycent (=Fincent, or Satoshi)
Pairs: Bitcoin/Bitcoincent, Gavin/Gavincent, Finney/Finneycents(Satoshis)
Advantage of that scheme is, that whatever the current valuation of bitcoin, you can always use bitcoin in the familiar way you handle the Dollar/cents pair.
So eg use Bitcoin/Bitcents for denominations of Bitcoin < 100$, Gavin/Gavincents for denominations of Bitcoin at 100$ and above, and later at maybe around 10k USD use Finneys/Finneycents(Satoshis).
Additionally those new names should not have the same sound to them, as that also facilitates confusion when two parties negotiate over price or when you send funds.
Third, in this stage of bitcoin, it seems futile to me to try press names into a scheme mirroring the Dollar-Cents relationship, because we have no idea where the valuation of bitcoin will end up in 1, 2, 5 years from now.
It might make more sense to use first names of people that heavily contributed to the bitcoin ecosystem (as in 1 Satoshi), in steps of 1000 as that is the scheme every SI unit generally follows. For all practical purposes the "cent" denominations can be added to the main denomination like so:
My official proposal:
1 Bitcoin, == 100 Bitcoincent (or 1 Bitcent),
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 Gavin (or Gav for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 00 Gavincent (or Gavcent)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 Finney (or Fin for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 00 Finneycent (=Fincent, or Satoshi)
Pairs: Bitcoin/Bitcoincent, Gavin/Gavincent, Finney/Finneycents(Satoshis)
Advantage of that scheme is, that whatever the current valuation of bitcoin, you can always use bitcoin in the familiar way you handle the Dollar/cents pair.
So eg use Bitcoin/Bitcents for denominations of Bitcoin < 100$, Gavin/Gavincents for denominations of Bitcoin at 100$ and above, and later at maybe around 10k USD use Finneys/Finneycents(Satoshis).
Your system has units with 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 zeros. Why not 2, 4, 6, 8? This would be much simpler and easier to understand.
Finally, you say it's your “official proposal”. What makes this official, compared to the other proposals in this forum?
.1 BTC= decibit
.01 BTC = centibit
.001 BTC = miliBit
.0001 BTC = squaredcentibit (.01 * .01).
Simple
.01 BTC = centibit
.001 BTC = miliBit
.0001 BTC = squaredcentibit (.01 * .01).
Simple
Cross post from other thread:
I definitely think new names would reduce the chance of confounding denominations, as well as make handling smaller amounts of BTC much simpler.
Additionally those new names should not have the same sound to them, as that also facilitates confusion when two parties negotiate over price or when you send funds.
Third, in this stage of bitcoin, it seems futile to me to try press names into a scheme mirroring the Dollar-Cents relationship, because we have no idea where the valuation of bitcoin will end up in 1, 2, 5 years from now.
It might make more sense to use first names of people that heavily contributed to the bitcoin ecosystem (as in 1 Satoshi), in steps of 1000 as that is the scheme every SI unit generally follows. For all practical purposes the "cent" denominations can be added to the main denomination like so:
My official proposal:
1 Bitcoin, == 100 Bitcoincent (or 1 Bitcent),
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 Gavin (or Gav for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 00 Gavincent (or Gavcent)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 Finney (or Fin for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 00 Finneycent (=Fincent, or Satoshi)
Pairs: Bitcoin/Bitcoincent, Gavin/Gavincent, Finney/Finneycents(Satoshis)
Advantage of that scheme is, that whatever the current valuation of bitcoin, you can always use bitcoin in the familiar way you handle the Dollar/cents pair.
So eg use Bitcoin/Bitcents for denominations of Bitcoin < 100$, Gavin/Gavincents for denominations of Bitcoin at 100$ and above, and later at maybe around 10k USD use Finneys/Finneycents(Satoshis).
Additionally those new names should not have the same sound to them, as that also facilitates confusion when two parties negotiate over price or when you send funds.
Third, in this stage of bitcoin, it seems futile to me to try press names into a scheme mirroring the Dollar-Cents relationship, because we have no idea where the valuation of bitcoin will end up in 1, 2, 5 years from now.
It might make more sense to use first names of people that heavily contributed to the bitcoin ecosystem (as in 1 Satoshi), in steps of 1000 as that is the scheme every SI unit generally follows. For all practical purposes the "cent" denominations can be added to the main denomination like so:
My official proposal:
1 Bitcoin, == 100 Bitcoincent (or 1 Bitcent),
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 Gavin (or Gav for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 00 Gavincent (or Gavcent)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 Finney (or Fin for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 00 Finneycent (=Fincent, or Satoshi)
Pairs: Bitcoin/Bitcoincent, Gavin/Gavincent, Finney/Finneycents(Satoshis)
Advantage of that scheme is, that whatever the current valuation of bitcoin, you can always use bitcoin in the familiar way you handle the Dollar/cents pair.
So eg use Bitcoin/Bitcents for denominations of Bitcoin < 100$, Gavin/Gavincents for denominations of Bitcoin at 100$ and above, and later at maybe around 10k USD use Finneys/Finneycents(Satoshis).
The more BTC is implemented into the real world, I think we will see fraction terms such as these, lets say BTC had a value over 1k$, peopel are going to be trading and buying in fractions, there will be names..
How about...
Bitcoin ?
Using names other than Bitcoin - Andresen, Millibit, Satoshi etc will just confuse people.
Instead, redenominate the Bitcoin as 0.0001 BTC and rename the present Bitcoin a Satoshi.
So you will have
1.0 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 Satoshi.
0.0001 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 (new) Bitcoin
Bitcoin ?
Using names other than Bitcoin - Andresen, Millibit, Satoshi etc will just confuse people.
Instead, redenominate the Bitcoin as 0.0001 BTC and rename the present Bitcoin a Satoshi.
So you will have
1.0 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 Satoshi.
0.0001 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 (new) Bitcoin
Yeah, that won't confuse people, I'm sure...
+1
Definitely won't confuse people right? 
Jump to: