Topic: Bitcent? - page 2. (Read 5594 times)

I agree with both things: to move decimal point and to use Satoshi. Why not do both? And maybe then there will be no need to do anything else

I don't agree with abbreviating the 'Satoshi', it would defeat the point I think.

The concept of Millibitcoins, microbitcoins, etc. is good, it makes it easier to name the small amount.

However, these are not the units that people are using everyday. And it could be very confusing for ordinary folks to identify the number of zeros, and do calculations.

Satoshi = STS!

I'm in favor. abbrv STS?

I think it would be too confusing to change the "bitcoin" name
to something else; in addition, it woud be difficult to find an
agreement on a new name.

When government issued currencies become worthless,
it is common to move the decimal point without changing
the name of the currency ; there is a transition period during
which the new currency is called "new ruble", "new franc", or
"new whatever". After a few months, people just drop the
"new" in the name.

we should just do that.

if one bitcoin becomes worth more than 10 usd, I suggest to
release a new version of the bitcoin client so that all amounts
are multiplied by 1000. That is, we move the decimal point so
that "new bitcoin" refers to 0.001 BTC. after a few months,
people will just say "bitcoin" instead of "new bitcoin", and
"old bitcoin" in order to refer to todays bitcoins.

why x1000 and not x100 ? First, because we do not want to do this
too often. it would be relatively easy to do this operation now, because
the community is small, but when the community becomes larger it will
become more difficult. Second, x1000 is probably more intuitive than x100 :
"21 million" becomes "21 billion", and so on.

Affirmative.

Yes, do it!

1 satoshi = 1 microbitcent (smallest denomination)

100 million satoshis = 1 bitcoin

Are we agreed?

oh, sounds great

I can't wait to use satoshi to denote a very small fraction of bitcoin .

Begone Reddit user!

Me Gusta.

lets look a little longer term here, and maybe a bit optimistic.

currently the format supports e-08 accuracy, why not just call that a credit? a currency built and started by geeks (crypto/econ/general) would have its most common term for a unit be the 'Credit'. if in time the currency becomes so popular that additional levels of accuracy are required (i.e. e-12) those would chits or credits (lower c) similar to the difference between a bit and a Byte (mbps/MB). and if it goes in the other direction and never reaches a .0000001 BTC/$ then it would simply look more like the Yen or other similar currency. Video games (poor example I know but only one I can think of) have used basic 3 levels of currency for some time now. Typically gold/silver/copper (1/.01/.0001) Eve users simply tack on the modifier to the currency name 'isk' giving a kisk, misk, bisk, tisk. Its simple to understand not confusing and easy to say, for most people, But mostly it allows for infinite expansion.

Overall point being don't think in terms of just a couple of decimal places and anymore than 3 denomination names would be confusing. the easiest systems to change are modular in nature, and since the BTC is nowhere near stabilized against other currency placing a hard name on it would lead to the same kind of clutter we are dealing with in cellphones, protocols, and standards.

Keep it modular, fluid, and simple. and you'll keep it able to adapt and change as it grows into something of its own.

Somebody should write a distopian science fiction story where it costs you 1 United States Union for a tank of gas.

and all other transactions are expressed in unions, leading to "old west" prices - Five unions for that horse? Way too high. Plus I need 50 Unions to hire a US marshal to find out who killed my poppa for his two california gold pieces.

Regular currency is inflationary, and they do change denominations: There are no longer half-cents like there used to be, and people are talking about getting rid of the penny more and more lately. Bitcoin is deflationary (as seen by its climb in price), so I think the opposite would be a good idea. If Bitcoin got to the $10 USD per BTC point I would think it would be prudent to move the decimal point to keep it more conveniently sized.

Or, we could just use the standard metric prefixes: Millibitcoins, microbitcoins, etc.



Fun fact: The US money system was originally based around five units: the cent, dime, dollar, eagle, and union. Each one worth ten times the previous unit. Union coins never ended up being actually minted for circulation.

I like ribuck's terminology:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46648

He suggests bitcents, then millicents and microcents. Microcents happen to be the smallest available subdivision of bitcoins, so this works nicely.

regular currency doesn't really do this, yes they have sub dollar denominations but that's because they know that those denominations will not continually get smaller. There is nothing smaller than a cent. There is also nothing larger than the dollar.

Since bitcoin will continually be used in smaller and smaller denominations we would continually have to come up with new names for them, which is pointless.

Is there another name for 1Billion dollars? No, and for the same reason there shouldn't be another name for anything under 1btc.

Maybe it's time to think about smaller monetary unit, which will equal 1/100 of the bitcoin? Or even smaller one, 1/1000? It may be called bitcent (BTCN) or somehow other. Or it won't be good looking, when in the "bitcoin economy" of the future (maybe nearest future) most things will cost "0,0251 BTC", "0,003 BTC" and so on. Not very convenient.