Topic: A new notation for Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 2071 times)
I have no problem with the current way btc is handled (millibitcoin, etc....).
@pgibson
The reason for my bemusement is the idea of anything (other than the code itself) being 'established' - especially in an 'always has and always will' kind of way - considering how potentially early we are in the history of Bitcoin. If demand and frequency of transactions is to reach a stage such that trade in the smaller 'denominations' are commonplace the number of Bitcoin users today will be dwarfed as a proportion of the whole. So whilst I wasn't in the Bitcoin community early enough to be in on the discussion when 'it was decided' what the nomenculture of subdivisions should be, regardless of what the consensus among the current active members may be, could it be somewhat premature to be closing doors to other options?
Having said all this my guess is that for most it's nothing like dogma at all, rather having thought it through many have concluded and will remain convinced unless persuaded otherwise, that the way it is is also the way forward. That is to be expected.
To me though, and given your response and the link knight22 kindly posted, I'm not alone in thinking the fact that the current 'language of representation' of Bitcoin is not 'hardwired' into Bitcoin in its native format opens the field wide open in terms of how we represent it, talk about it and most importantly, think about it. It's a big neon sign that says: 'New Paradigms This Way'! It's too big an opportunity in my eyes to be satisfied with a slight variation on the theme of the way people have always thought about money and numbers.
But whilst part of my argument against the whole, 'mikes/millies/satoshies' thing is that it is a wasted opportunity it is not either similar enough to what people are used to to take on board without having to think differently. And if users are going to have to think differently anyway, why not do so in a way that is going to serve them better in terms of more of a grasp of quantities of money, from the vast to the tiny? The thing is my guess is most people might be able to imagine a tenth of a penny/cent or whatever from the currency with which they're familiar but beyond that? Whatever currency we look at (since decimalisation in the 70s in the UK) there's a primary unit and a secondary unit one hundredth of the size. That's it. If ever there was a need to go smaller it's long past now to the vast majority of users of most currencies with the inflation that's inherent to fiat currencies. The only numbers outside of common usage are large ones (typically those beyond the value of their home) and as I alluded to earlier, politicians can get away with all kinds of outrageous financial behaviour simply because most people don't get and don't care about the difference for instance between a billion and ten billion. As for numbers less than one I hope I am not underestimating the intelligence of the general populace when I guess that the vast majority, at the rare times they actually think of numbers smaller than one, just think of them simply them as 'small'. Smaller numbers, even the denominations nowhere near as small as the satoshi, are totally unfamiliar territory to the majority. I don't see that giving the denominations friendly names (whilst having to know the relationships between them) overcomes this problem.
As an aside I have a theory people are a lot less frugal with their money when it's so easy to be dismissive of smaller amounts of money as 'not much money'. If the money one possesses or handles was seen as a sliding logarithmic scale there may be a higher tendency for people not to think 'wastefully' about it according to denomination.
So that's why I'd like to see something along the lines of my 'power bitcoin' suggestion become popular.
What I have said above however says nothing about the challenges that have been raised about my proposal.
First I'd like to address 'people don't think in logarithms'. This I can not deny. It is (or rather the associated inability to deal with all but a small range of numbers) is one of the symptoms of an innumerate society as put forward by John Allen Paulos in his book 'Innumeracy'. There is no denying, as deepceleron says above, that calculating the price of '5 items at 20 whatever-the-fuck-BTC' is easier than the same with logarithm. But this is only true for as long as people are only having to consider one or two denominations. If houses, cars and cans of beans are each in their own denomination; if all (or most) of these denominations are less than one Bitcoin and if the relationship between these denominations have to be learned, remembered and be borne in mind to get an idea of the scale of money being talked about, again, I can't see this as being a simpler solution.
How do most people calculate the price of buying 5 items @ £/$ 80, 800 or 8,000 each? Don't they lose the zeroes, do the sum then add the zeroes back in? Likewise (for those who can do it) for 5 items @ 0.00008 BTC each to get to 0.0004? Is it really more difficult, in the case of the latter, to multiply 5 items by 16.8 ^BTC to get 17.4?
If these kinds of mental calculations required an understanding of the mathematics that underlies it (going by how few know how to square or cube a number) I think I'd be onto a non-starter. But you don't need to be able to add ten to the power of whatever to the number in order use this notation (at least you don't need to know that that's what you're doing). What I'm saying is I'm not buying the 'too complicated' argument.
But maybe theorising about perceived difficulty among the general population is a bit of a waste of time. Maybe I could do some initial research with my friends and family see how they get on.
As for favourite clients and GUIs this is one of the beauties of an idea such as this in that it's not a big deal if a few like the idea to have someone write some code and to be able to put it to work. It doesn't matter in a couple of years whether it's 99% or 1% of users still thinking of all quantities in relation to One Bitcoin. 'Power Bitcoin' might become and remain a niche ultra-geek hobby or could ride a meme-wave and if found to be of general value, even break onto the shores of other currencies and larger (and smaller) numbers in the wider world.
Anyone game on having a go?
I'm a little upset myself at the dogma of the current units in place...
I can not comment on your experience but based on what I've read so far 'dogma' seems a bit strong. However, I have to admit to being slightly bemused as I read related material that some people come across a little protective of the status quo when it comes to Bitcoin units and their naming.The reason for my bemusement is the idea of anything (other than the code itself) being 'established' - especially in an 'always has and always will' kind of way - considering how potentially early we are in the history of Bitcoin. If demand and frequency of transactions is to reach a stage such that trade in the smaller 'denominations' are commonplace the number of Bitcoin users today will be dwarfed as a proportion of the whole. So whilst I wasn't in the Bitcoin community early enough to be in on the discussion when 'it was decided' what the nomenculture of subdivisions should be, regardless of what the consensus among the current active members may be, could it be somewhat premature to be closing doors to other options?
Having said all this my guess is that for most it's nothing like dogma at all, rather having thought it through many have concluded and will remain convinced unless persuaded otherwise, that the way it is is also the way forward. That is to be expected.
To me though, and given your response and the link knight22 kindly posted, I'm not alone in thinking the fact that the current 'language of representation' of Bitcoin is not 'hardwired' into Bitcoin in its native format opens the field wide open in terms of how we represent it, talk about it and most importantly, think about it. It's a big neon sign that says: 'New Paradigms This Way'! It's too big an opportunity in my eyes to be satisfied with a slight variation on the theme of the way people have always thought about money and numbers.
But whilst part of my argument against the whole, 'mikes/millies/satoshies' thing is that it is a wasted opportunity it is not either similar enough to what people are used to to take on board without having to think differently. And if users are going to have to think differently anyway, why not do so in a way that is going to serve them better in terms of more of a grasp of quantities of money, from the vast to the tiny? The thing is my guess is most people might be able to imagine a tenth of a penny/cent or whatever from the currency with which they're familiar but beyond that? Whatever currency we look at (since decimalisation in the 70s in the UK) there's a primary unit and a secondary unit one hundredth of the size. That's it. If ever there was a need to go smaller it's long past now to the vast majority of users of most currencies with the inflation that's inherent to fiat currencies. The only numbers outside of common usage are large ones (typically those beyond the value of their home) and as I alluded to earlier, politicians can get away with all kinds of outrageous financial behaviour simply because most people don't get and don't care about the difference for instance between a billion and ten billion. As for numbers less than one I hope I am not underestimating the intelligence of the general populace when I guess that the vast majority, at the rare times they actually think of numbers smaller than one, just think of them simply them as 'small'. Smaller numbers, even the denominations nowhere near as small as the satoshi, are totally unfamiliar territory to the majority. I don't see that giving the denominations friendly names (whilst having to know the relationships between them) overcomes this problem.
As an aside I have a theory people are a lot less frugal with their money when it's so easy to be dismissive of smaller amounts of money as 'not much money'. If the money one possesses or handles was seen as a sliding logarithmic scale there may be a higher tendency for people not to think 'wastefully' about it according to denomination.
So that's why I'd like to see something along the lines of my 'power bitcoin' suggestion become popular.
What I have said above however says nothing about the challenges that have been raised about my proposal.
First I'd like to address 'people don't think in logarithms'. This I can not deny. It is (or rather the associated inability to deal with all but a small range of numbers) is one of the symptoms of an innumerate society as put forward by John Allen Paulos in his book 'Innumeracy'. There is no denying, as deepceleron says above, that calculating the price of '5 items at 20 whatever-the-fuck-BTC' is easier than the same with logarithm. But this is only true for as long as people are only having to consider one or two denominations. If houses, cars and cans of beans are each in their own denomination; if all (or most) of these denominations are less than one Bitcoin and if the relationship between these denominations have to be learned, remembered and be borne in mind to get an idea of the scale of money being talked about, again, I can't see this as being a simpler solution.
How do most people calculate the price of buying 5 items @ £/$ 80, 800 or 8,000 each? Don't they lose the zeroes, do the sum then add the zeroes back in? Likewise (for those who can do it) for 5 items @ 0.00008 BTC each to get to 0.0004? Is it really more difficult, in the case of the latter, to multiply 5 items by 16.8 ^BTC to get 17.4?
If these kinds of mental calculations required an understanding of the mathematics that underlies it (going by how few know how to square or cube a number) I think I'd be onto a non-starter. But you don't need to be able to add ten to the power of whatever to the number in order use this notation (at least you don't need to know that that's what you're doing). What I'm saying is I'm not buying the 'too complicated' argument.
But maybe theorising about perceived difficulty among the general population is a bit of a waste of time. Maybe I could do some initial research with my friends and family see how they get on.
As for favourite clients and GUIs this is one of the beauties of an idea such as this in that it's not a big deal if a few like the idea to have someone write some code and to be able to put it to work. It doesn't matter in a couple of years whether it's 99% or 1% of users still thinking of all quantities in relation to One Bitcoin. 'Power Bitcoin' might become and remain a niche ultra-geek hobby or could ride a meme-wave and if found to be of general value, even break onto the shores of other currencies and larger (and smaller) numbers in the wider world.
Anyone game on having a go?
I'm a little upset myself at the dogma of the current units in place.
I made a primitive spreadsheet to look at the binary "bits" so to say, but I admit I don't have a practical solution to the problem I see of the units mis-representing the actual value these coins hold.
I suppose one can patch their favorite client to allow different units in the GUI, but it's all the same in the blockchain. Representation is a social issue. It's too bad there's no "metric vs Imperial" battle here, choices make it alot easier for people to accept the existing institution
http://pgibson.sdf.org/binarylook.xlsx
I made a primitive spreadsheet to look at the binary "bits" so to say, but I admit I don't have a practical solution to the problem I see of the units mis-representing the actual value these coins hold.
I suppose one can patch their favorite client to allow different units in the GUI, but it's all the same in the blockchain. Representation is a social issue. It's too bad there's no "metric vs Imperial" battle here, choices make it alot easier for people to accept the existing institution
http://pgibson.sdf.org/binarylook.xlsx
Appreciate your feedback folks.
Not quite ready to let go of the idea yet but plenty food for thought. At least I aired it and it was read by thinking people. Thank you.
Not quite ready to let go of the idea yet but plenty food for thought. At least I aired it and it was read by thinking people. Thank you.
Just as people know the difference between a dollar and a cent, they'll be able to figure out the difference between a bitcoin and a millibit.
BTC - bitcoin,
mBTC - millibitcoin (0.001 BTC) nickname "Millie"/"millibits"
μBTC - microbitcoin (0.000001 BTC) nickname "Mike"/"mikeys"
- http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units
BTC - bitcoin,
mBTC - millibitcoin (0.001 BTC) nickname "Millie"/"millibits"
μBTC - microbitcoin (0.000001 BTC) nickname "Mike"/"mikeys"
- http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units
This seems to be the standard already in place, atleast by wallet software.
Just as people know the difference between a dollar and a cent, they'll be able to figure out the difference between a bitcoin and a millibit.
BTC - bitcoin,
mBTC - millibitcoin (0.001 BTC) nickname "Millie"/"millibits"
μBTC - microbitcoin (0.000001 BTC) nickname "Mike"/"mikeys"
- http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units
BTC - bitcoin,
mBTC - millibitcoin (0.001 BTC) nickname "Millie"/"millibits"
μBTC - microbitcoin (0.000001 BTC) nickname "Mike"/"mikeys"
- http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units
People don't think in logarithms. They won't know how much to send to buy 5 items at 20 whatever-the-fuck-BTC. Bitcoin is already established, 1 BTC was 1 BTC at 1/10000 the current value and still will be 1 BTC in the future.
Way to much complicated for a majority of people.
Here a related topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/using-percentage-of-bitcoins-instead-of-number-of-bitcoins-109851
Here a related topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/using-percentage-of-bitcoins-instead-of-number-of-bitcoins-109851
Something along these lines may well have already been proposed and if it has, please direct me to the thread. However, there's always a chance this is actually a new and revolutionary idea .
Introducing 'powerbitcoin' (^BTC) ...
1 BTC = 21.1 ^BTC
half a Bitcoin = 20.5 ^BTC
quarter of a Bitcoin = 20.25 ^BTC (pronounced 'twenty dot two five powerbitcoin')
21 million BTC = 28.21 ^BTC
1 satoshi = 13.1 ^BTC
... another way to think about, to write, communicate and calculate Bitcoin quantities based on, but with a less cumbersome ‘feel’ than scientific notation (or decimal floating point notation).
This is something I’ve been thinking about I’d like to run by you folk see what you think.
The question is would enough people be able to understand and accept that the first number you encounter, the number to the left of the dot (not a decimal point) gives us the scale (denomination or ‘exponent’ ) of the value of Bitcoin whilst that on the right gives us the amount or ‘detail’? I suggest all that is required is an acceptance for instance that a 22.x value is ten times as big as a 21.x number to make practical use of it. The rest is just familiarity.
I’m a big fan of the concept of scientific notation as a means of easily being able to think about numbers of any magnitude from very large to very small. But perhaps one of the reasons for its lack of widespread adoption is that the accepted way of writing, and especially of pronouncing, standard notation are very unfamiliar and too ‘nerdy’ sounding for most people (e.g. ‘Five point two three seven times ten to the power of eight’). This is necessary in the scientific world because there is a need to be able to ‘translate’ from scientific notation to decimal and back. There is an inherent need in most situations for the number represented to refer to an entity that is counted or measured. Anybody using it therefore needs to have enough of an understanding of mathematics to be able to do the 'translation'.
But this is not the case when it comes to Bitcoin because underlying the ‘quantities’ of Bitcoin is ‘merely’ a lump of distributed encrypted code. The unit chosen to launch Bitcoin into the world was one Bitcoin but it is in the long term just a reference point to be divided or multiplied to the extent required. As far as I can see it what counts for Bitcoin is relative value so as long as the relationship between two numbers is understood the need to write or even to think of a number as x followed by y zeroes or zero point y zeroes followed by z becomes unnecessary.
If Bitcoin use is to become widespread and its value to increase such that ‘quantities’ exchanged for most goods and services are in micro or milibitcoin there’s no way of getting away from a need for users to think about numbers of different magnitudes than what they’re used to. So why not abandon the need for all the different denominations and instead use something entirely new.
I have provisionally chosen an arbitrary tiny divisor that should (for the foreseeable future) negate the need for negative exponents so the idea of positive for large and negative for small numbers is something else people don’t need to get their heads around.
I’m already using it to think of and write the amount of Bitcoin I am spending, the amount I have in my wallet or in the exchange. I’m using formulae to change it back and forth in my spreasheets and will want software (e.g. a mtgox api) to handle it.
So let me summarise my case for 'powerbitcoin':
• No need to count digits (or use commas) to see how big or small a number is;
• The first number you see tells you immediately the scale of the value of Bitcoin.
• No need to agree and learn potentially confusing names and symbols (such as microbitcoin and satoshi) for denominations.
• Expressing numbers from the immensely large to the immensely small, irrespective of the value of Bitcoin in terms of other currencies or commodities becomes really easy.
• The length of the latter number is decided purely only on the accuracy requiring to be expressed.
• There is no need ever to translate the numbers into decimal notation (with masses of zeroes) because with there being no entities to count, what counts is only value relative to other values.
• Logarithm rules of adding or subtracting exponents for multiplication and division make calculations easier.
• If the ability to use powerbitcoin notation becomes widespread maybe people will be less inclined to say stupid thing like ‘billion or trillion or whatever’ when it comes to amounts governments are borrowing/printing etc. In these matters size matters (/rant)
OK, so maybe I’m not the one to present the case against but disadvantages as far as I can see them are:
It’s brand new and totally unfamiliar;
It may require more of an understanding of mathematics by users than I am currently thinking;
Its use in spreadsheets and other software requires a formula or function for conversion in order to do calculations;
It may be a while before we can buy a calculator for use of Power Bitcoin (but there’s no reason not to have a ^BTC calculator app for smartphone);
If this became a 'meme' and powercoin was common parlance on the forums it would make Bitcoin look even more nerdy to your average folk than it already does!
Initial thoughts?
Edit: Doh! I just realised I got 'exponent' and 'significand' the wrong way round! Corrected
.Introducing 'powerbitcoin' (^BTC) ...
1 BTC = 21.1 ^BTC
half a Bitcoin = 20.5 ^BTC
quarter of a Bitcoin = 20.25 ^BTC (pronounced 'twenty dot two five powerbitcoin')
21 million BTC = 28.21 ^BTC
1 satoshi = 13.1 ^BTC
... another way to think about, to write, communicate and calculate Bitcoin quantities based on, but with a less cumbersome ‘feel’ than scientific notation (or decimal floating point notation).
This is something I’ve been thinking about I’d like to run by you folk see what you think.
The question is would enough people be able to understand and accept that the first number you encounter, the number to the left of the dot (not a decimal point) gives us the scale (denomination or ‘exponent’ ) of the value of Bitcoin whilst that on the right gives us the amount or ‘detail’? I suggest all that is required is an acceptance for instance that a 22.x value is ten times as big as a 21.x number to make practical use of it. The rest is just familiarity.
I’m a big fan of the concept of scientific notation as a means of easily being able to think about numbers of any magnitude from very large to very small. But perhaps one of the reasons for its lack of widespread adoption is that the accepted way of writing, and especially of pronouncing, standard notation are very unfamiliar and too ‘nerdy’ sounding for most people (e.g. ‘Five point two three seven times ten to the power of eight’). This is necessary in the scientific world because there is a need to be able to ‘translate’ from scientific notation to decimal and back. There is an inherent need in most situations for the number represented to refer to an entity that is counted or measured. Anybody using it therefore needs to have enough of an understanding of mathematics to be able to do the 'translation'.
But this is not the case when it comes to Bitcoin because underlying the ‘quantities’ of Bitcoin is ‘merely’ a lump of distributed encrypted code. The unit chosen to launch Bitcoin into the world was one Bitcoin but it is in the long term just a reference point to be divided or multiplied to the extent required. As far as I can see it what counts for Bitcoin is relative value so as long as the relationship between two numbers is understood the need to write or even to think of a number as x followed by y zeroes or zero point y zeroes followed by z becomes unnecessary.
If Bitcoin use is to become widespread and its value to increase such that ‘quantities’ exchanged for most goods and services are in micro or milibitcoin there’s no way of getting away from a need for users to think about numbers of different magnitudes than what they’re used to. So why not abandon the need for all the different denominations and instead use something entirely new.
I have provisionally chosen an arbitrary tiny divisor that should (for the foreseeable future) negate the need for negative exponents so the idea of positive for large and negative for small numbers is something else people don’t need to get their heads around.
I’m already using it to think of and write the amount of Bitcoin I am spending, the amount I have in my wallet or in the exchange. I’m using formulae to change it back and forth in my spreasheets and will want software (e.g. a mtgox api) to handle it.
So let me summarise my case for 'powerbitcoin':
• No need to count digits (or use commas) to see how big or small a number is;
• The first number you see tells you immediately the scale of the value of Bitcoin.
• No need to agree and learn potentially confusing names and symbols (such as microbitcoin and satoshi) for denominations.
• Expressing numbers from the immensely large to the immensely small, irrespective of the value of Bitcoin in terms of other currencies or commodities becomes really easy.
• The length of the latter number is decided purely only on the accuracy requiring to be expressed.
• There is no need ever to translate the numbers into decimal notation (with masses of zeroes) because with there being no entities to count, what counts is only value relative to other values.
• Logarithm rules of adding or subtracting exponents for multiplication and division make calculations easier.
• If the ability to use powerbitcoin notation becomes widespread maybe people will be less inclined to say stupid thing like ‘billion or trillion or whatever’ when it comes to amounts governments are borrowing/printing etc. In these matters size matters (/rant)
OK, so maybe I’m not the one to present the case against but disadvantages as far as I can see them are:
It’s brand new and totally unfamiliar;
It may require more of an understanding of mathematics by users than I am currently thinking;
Its use in spreadsheets and other software requires a formula or function for conversion in order to do calculations;
It may be a while before we can buy a calculator for use of Power Bitcoin (but there’s no reason not to have a ^BTC calculator app for smartphone);
If this became a 'meme' and powercoin was common parlance on the forums it would make Bitcoin look even more nerdy to your average folk than it already does!
Initial thoughts?
Edit: Doh! I just realised I got 'exponent' and 'significand' the wrong way round! Corrected
Jump to: