This looks good!
Topic: Bitcoin Fractional Units - page 2. (Read 2416 times)
I like how "bits" sounds.
It's professional and simple.
And as the value per bitcoin increases, the utility of "bits" will still be usable for a long time. For example, it may cost 5,000 bits for a cup of coffee now (I haven't done the exact math).
But eventually it will only be 50 bits, for a cup of coffee, for example.
It will save us from having to rename the common unit for a long period of time.
It's professional and simple.
And as the value per bitcoin increases, the utility of "bits" will still be usable for a long time. For example, it may cost 5,000 bits for a cup of coffee now (I haven't done the exact math).
But eventually it will only be 50 bits, for a cup of coffee, for example.
It will save us from having to rename the common unit for a long period of time.
OP was too open ended and all over the place, so i decided to make it more specific. Join in the discussion so we can come up with detailed specifications as to bitcoin's fractional units.
I prefer 'mills' (mBTC) and 'mikes' (uBTC), as it reuses existing patterns well-known to anyone who has had a need to handle numbers of anything over a range of magnitudes (i.e. the SI system, used nearly universally in other areas of measurement). I may be in the minority. As such, I recognize the need to sit back and let consensus emerge. Trying to force the issue will not be resistant to whatever socially-selected solution eventually emerges.
this is excellent! i have updated OP.I like BITS because it sounds cool.
maybe we can have the best of both worlds by renaming these, mills (mBTC) bits (uBTC)
Bits sounds professional too.
Bits comes out naturally
I have a friend i talk to about bitcoin alot, and he started saying things like " hows the bits doing ", long ago.
i am all for using Bits as a fractional unit of bitcoin. and i think alot of poeple like it too
I prefer 'mills' (mBTC) and 'mikes' (uBTC), as it reuses existing patterns well-known to anyone who has had a need to handle numbers of anything over a range of magnitudes (i.e. the SI system, used nearly universally in other areas of measurement). I may be in the minority. As such, I recognize the need to sit back and let consensus emerge. Trying to force the issue will not be resistant to whatever socially-selected solution eventually emerges.
this is excellent! i have updated OP.I like BITS because it sounds cool.
maybe we can have the best of both worlds by renaming these, mills (mBTC) bits (uBTC)
Bits sounds professional too.
I prefer 'mills' (mBTC) and 'mikes' (uBTC), as it reuses existing patterns well-known to anyone who has had a need to handle numbers of anything over a range of magnitudes (i.e. the SI system, used nearly universally in other areas of measurement). I may be in the minority. As such, I recognize the need to sit back and let consensus emerge. Trying to force the issue will not be resistant to whatever socially-selected solution eventually emerges.
this is excellent! i have updated OP.I like BITS because it sounds cool.
maybe we can have the best of both worlds by renaming these, mills (mBTC) bits (uBTC)
Using the term 'bit' to refer to 1/1000000 of a Bitcoin is by no means a Generally Accepted Concept.
sure it is! blockchain.info and qt wallets both allow you to view your balance in BITS already.Yes, wallets can already 'display balances as BTC and BITS ex. 3.1BTC and 238903BITS'. Get coding.
i only saw wallets that either display in bits or BTC, never both, maybe thats the best approach just throwing an idea out there.Incidentally, the 'official' wallet already has a user-settable option to display in BTC, mBTC, or uBTC.
yes, i see that, and thats good, but what does it default to? when i send a payment and i want to send it in BTC but my Qt or blockchain wallet is set to bits, will i need to go into the setting and then send my BTC payment out and then set it back to bits ? thats a bitch, wallets need to be able to switch from BTC / BITS on the fly, as i am about to make a payment, some sites will quote prices in BTC some in BITS, needs to be fast and easy to switch back and forth when making a payment. I'm not dropping mBTC. You can if you want. I recognize that I have no ability to force your behavior.
As a passing comment, I note that humans already have an issue with 6 decades of dynamic range. Introducing new units to reduce from 8 decades to 6 (i.e. 'Satoshis' to 'uBTC' or 'bit'), without an intervening unit (i.e. 'mBTC'), accomplishes very little.
As a passing comment, I note that humans already have an issue with 6 decades of dynamic range. Introducing new units to reduce from 8 decades to 6 (i.e. 'Satoshis' to 'uBTC' or 'bit'), without an intervening unit (i.e. 'mBTC'), accomplishes very little.
if we all just leave this up in the air, no standards defined anywhere, let everyone do their own thing, and hope it all sorta works out in the end, its going to get really messy and hard to work with... how do i pay a site that prices things in mBTC when my blockchain wallet doesn't even have a setting for mBTC??? ( if you think its no problem just multiply it by 10 and you get the BTC amount, then your voting that we simply accept the way things are and make due... we can do better -_- ) we need to think about these thing, discuss them, draw out some standards, maybe drop mBTC because it just making things just that much more complicated.
Using the term 'bit' to refer to 1/1000000 of a Bitcoin is by no means a Generally Accepted Concept.
Yes, wallets can already 'display balances as BTC and BITS ex. 3.1BTC and 238903BITS'. Get coding.
Incidentally, the 'official' wallet already has a user-settable option to display in BTC, mBTC, or uBTC.
I'm not dropping mBTC. You can if you want. I recognize that I have no ability to force your behavior.
As a passing comment, I note that humans already have an issue with 6 decades of dynamic range. Introducing new units to reduce from 8 decades to 6 (i.e. 'Satoshis' to 'uBTC' or 'bit'), without an intervening unit (i.e. 'mBTC'), accomplishes very little.
Yes, wallets can already 'display balances as BTC and BITS ex. 3.1BTC and 238903BITS'. Get coding.
Incidentally, the 'official' wallet already has a user-settable option to display in BTC, mBTC, or uBTC.
I'm not dropping mBTC. You can if you want. I recognize that I have no ability to force your behavior.
As a passing comment, I note that humans already have an issue with 6 decades of dynamic range. Introducing new units to reduce from 8 decades to 6 (i.e. 'Satoshis' to 'uBTC' or 'bit'), without an intervening unit (i.e. 'mBTC'), accomplishes very little.
This thread will attempt to standardize bitcoin's fractional units, once and for all. The hope is that through community effort we can come up with a set of bitcoin fractional units, and also determine how these units should be used by wallets to display balances, or my merchant sites to display prices.
why is this an issue?
because bitcoin qt says 1,000,000th of a bitcoin is called a "micro-bitcoin", and blockchain.info's wallet says that 1,000,000th of a bitcoin is called a "bit"
and this bugs me.
why is this an issue?
because bitcoin qt says 1,000,000th of a bitcoin is called a "micro-bitcoin", and blockchain.info's wallet says that 1,000,000th of a bitcoin is called a "bit"
and this bugs me.
Jump to: