Topic: A Proposal for the Mitigation of Bitcoin's Linguistic Transaction Costs (Read 5343 times)

I think most people are used to the first 3 here and they would fit quite well:

100,000,000  One Bitcoin
_10,000,000  Ten Cent(s) (abbreviation of Ten Bitcents)
__1,000,000  One Cent (abbreviation of One Bitcent)

Then theres the next 3, which need to be named. Most people have adopted milli bitcoin (mBTC) for 0.001 BTC, others think this may cause problems regarding adoption and pricing. However, since I split it in parts of 3, there can be One - Ten - Hundred Blocks (with the Bitcoin as the 100 Cent replacement as it's the currency name. This is done with most currencies like the Dollar, the Euro etc. if you look at the decimals that are used when shopping. It's 2 decimal places and then most of the time the currency name as "one full unit", which is made of 100 of the lowest amount people usually pay with).
So what we'd need here is a unique name with preferably no more than 2 syllables. "milli Bitcoin" is way too long even tho you could just call is "One Mill". I know the finney is supposed to be 10,000 Satishis but it hasn't been adapted yet. Using the finney for 1,000 Satoshit instead would provide everything needed. It would look like this:

____100,000  Hundred Finneys
_____10,000  Ten Finneys
_______1000 One Finney

The word "Finney" seems unique enough. It has only 2 syllables and consists of 6 characters, which is fine. If would come naturally to people who are familiar with the One-Ten-Hundred system for a currency, and it is consistent among all orders or magnitude.
Another option would be using "One Mill" or something similar as a abbreviation of "One milli Bitcoin" and then get either a unique name for 1,000 Satoshis is just use ten of that for 10,000 Satoshis, Or stick with a Finney for 10,000 and get another unique name for 1,000 Satoshis, or just leave it at "One Thousand Satoshis". However, I consistently using the One-Ten-Hundred model comes more naturally and makes it easier for people to adopt

(the more inconsistent approach:)
____100,000  One Mill (abbreviation of One milli Bitcoin)?
_____10,000  One Finney
_______1000 One Thousand Satoshis


For the last 3 I think Satoshi has been adopted by a lot of bitcoiners alread. Yes, it has 3 syllables, but it's quite unique and it it's written form is easily recognized which is why I think using it in the One-Ten-Hundred system is quite fitting:

________100 Hundred Satoshis
_________10 Ten Satoshis
__________1 One Satoshi

+1

This is a good system that lets people feel they have many units in their wallet without turning the nomenclature upside-down. Very Doge.

The Limit of int64 is 9.223.372.036.854.775.807(signed) or 18.446.744.073.709.551.615 (unsigned)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_(Datentyp)

The limit of 64 bit int.

You misunderstood my question.
I wonderer why they made the decisision to use this 100.000.000 step. Normally you would use steps of 1.000 (like in Mega or Giga), but they decided to make steps in 100 (?). We don't even use this System. We use µBTC which is 100 Satoschi but 1.000th of 1 mBTC which is 1.000 of 1 BTC.
This 100 step to come from Satoschi to µBTC doesn't fit.

Because it accounts for future growth of the world economy including inflation in the future since no future supply can be created it needed to go into Quadrillions

I never understood, why they made that decision. Maybe some veteran Bitconar could explain?

The problem is that 100 million satoshi to a bitcoin is not logical. Should have been 1 million or 1 billion. This makes no sense at all. So before you do anything you should either cut two zeroes or add one.

In English: A "lack" of money is a strong negative.
You might get more support if you edit that part out. 

I think Mega is more familiar to people. Lakh is just familiar to Asian people and not an international term, that is used by everybody, who has a computer.
So, stop forcing terms into the bitcoin world, just because it is used in your country. I don't care, what population your country has, so you can say "it is already familiar to many people"
It is not gonna happen.

You are missing the point.

The important factor is the semantic re-basement, the terms used for the powers of ten can vary over time and geography. 

The human instinct to hoard collectibles has driven the adoption of Bitcoin. For this to continue to be a strong driving factor, the amounts that typical new users are able to acquire should be referred to as full "bitcoins". At this point anything from 1 to 100,000 satoshis would work, but the smaller units scale farther into the future, if we assume further S-curve adoption.

Lakh is just a good term to refer to units of 100,000 of anything, because it is a simple single syllable term, and is already familiar to many people.

I neither want an American nomenclature nor an Asien.
So, neither Dollar nor Lakh is acceptable for me and most other people in Europe.
Bitcoin is a global currency. Keep that in mind and don't refer to what you are used to, when dealing with fiat in your country.

People learned what Byte, MB, etc. is. People will learn the nomenclature of Bitcoins.

I like that.

I know this obviously isn't going to be a thing because it's "confusing", but I would just prefer to call them dollars (I do in my mind). Dollars, Cryptodollars, C-dollars, Bitdollars, whatever the appropriate name somebody can think of and agree on. If I would say I placed a 125 dollar buy order on mintpal to buy Xcoin, it should be obvious I'm not talking about US or Canadian or Australian dollars, because Mintpal is a place in the cryptoworld and not in New York or Toronto or Sydney. Nobody in Canada gets confused when someone at the convenience store says, that will be 5 dollars please, unless they are a fucking moron. And if someone did want to sell something for USD in Canada, then they would simply clarify: that will be 5 US dollars. Let me clarify again, that I understand that this kind of system has flaws and why it might confusing unless it was universally recognized, but it just works fine for me personally.

1.00000000 - 1000 dollars
0.10000000 - 100
0.01000000 - 10
0.00100000 - 1
0.00010000 - 10 cents
0.00001000 - 1
0.00000100 - 100 satoshi
0.00000010 - 10
0.00000001 - 1

1 satoshi should be 1 bitcoin, 1 current bitcoin = 100 million bitcoins

1 finney = 0.0001 bitcoin = 10000 satoshis

I think I can finally admit that I really liked that name.

The need is clear, but redefining 'Bitcoin' right now (especially swapping its meaning with 'Satoshi') would be like trying to change the side-of-the-road a country drives on. It'd require massive consensus and synchronization to avoid confusion and loss.

I have a proposal based on coining a new term for µBTC. More details are in a sibling thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5774811

Cheers, jeers, and all other kinds of reactions welcome.

I don't think most people will even be trading in Raw Bitcoin except brokers soon. Colored coins will be the normal currency and they will have a Bitcoin size of BTC0.0000543. Unless that minimum dust transaction limit plans to be changed soon, we should have a naming contest for that as it will be the basis of all colored coin creations. I'm still not clear if that is also the bottom for colored coin transactions themselves or not.

I propose using microbitcoin as this would make it appear you get more when buying bitcoin with dollars. And a microbitcoin has 2 decimals, just like most other currencies.

i like this one as well.  kilotoshi.