Topic: Bitcoin needs something equivalent to a stock split (Read 5462 times)

Not sure which prior post you're referring to, but all of these proposed changes are technically feasible (if critical mass of term-usage is achieved). No matter what units are chosen for human use, interfaces, and integration with other systems – the core protocol/system always works on integral satoshis. All of the following tallies are identical, and represented the same in the binary protocol and canonical data structures:

  21 million BTC
= 21 billion mBTC/"millibitcoin"
= 21 trillion µBTC/"microbitcoin"
= 210 trillion satoshis

Working up from a zib=µBTC unit instead, again all these can be used interchangably without really changing the atomic units of the system:

  210 trillion satoshis/cZBC/"centizib"/"cents"
= 21 trillion ZBC/"zib" (aka µBTC)
= 21 billion kZBC/kƵ/"kilozib" (aka mBTC)
= 21 million MZBC/MƵ/"megazib" (aka BTC)

For completeness, you can also think about units that exist but are so large they'd rarely be useful...

  210 trillion satoshis
= 21 thousand GZBC/GƵ/"gigazib" (aka kBTC/"kilobitcoin")
= 21 TZBC/TƵ/"terazib" (aka MBTC/"megabitcoin")

...as in, "Some estimate that Satoshi himself may own around 1 megabitcoin (1 MBTC)", or "Mt. Gox misplaced 850 kilobitcoin (850 kBTC)".

Since people easily understand large numbers, especially when rarely used, it's far more likely to emphasize the unique size of these numbers by using the smaller units:

"Some estimate that Satoshi himself may own around 1 million bitcoin" or "...1 trillion zib".

"MtGox misplaced 850 thousand bitcoin" or "... 850 billion zib".

I don't see how this is entirely feasible unless we are talking like changing the units to mBTC.

Now, we have just <21,000,000,000 mBTC that will potentially be available.

A benefit of contriving a new term (like zibcoin/zib/ZBC/Ƶ) is that it can be used in parallel with other terms, giving time for the new term to gradually be understood and prove its worth, and always leaving the old terms understandable (in current work and archived content).

Big agreement up front isn't required, and there's no risky 'big bang' switchover date splitting software or historical records into two disjoint eras.

Instead, people just choose to use new terms incrementally more-and-more as they see the need – perhaps in reaction to either Bitcoin value-appreciation, or problems when spelling/saying other terms. Others gradually become familiar over repeated viewings, learning from context (or looking it up when first confronted).

Everyone could just agree that after a certain block in the future, like 6 months away, some decimal points were changed and some zeros added to the back end. Codes could be written into clients and the penalty for people not updating is only that they have higher transactions fees by the same order of magnitude of the switch in decimal points. It's important to add some zeros on the back end though.

That's a rather dim view of your fellow humans.   For bitcoin to have value and to work like a currency rather than a volatile commodity, it needs to have a larger user base to provide inertia.   

When I can walk to my corner store and buy a pack of smokes and a can of Monster with bitcoin, I'm going to be really happy.

If you want a secret cryptocoin, use one of the other bitcoin imitators with a silly name that no average person has heard about or will ever hear about.  You and your friends can trade them for Magic the Gathering cards, or whatever you're into.

No. Why would worldwide acceptance be the ultimate goal? Adoption does not drive the price, contrary to the belief of tards on this forum. People who need the utility that bitcoin offers will use it. It is an example of Hayek's spontaneous emergence. Bitcoin does not need you hawking it to your wife. She has no use for it regardless.

The average person has no need for bitcoin , nor do they care about it, nor should they be told about it. Average people ruin things. When average people joined the internet what happened? It turned into a huge cesspool. When average people obtained automobiles traffic jams occured. When average people were given the right to vote, nation's collapsed. You get the picture.

I'm just not seeing that a bank-like institution continuing to use ancient Cobol software that was last updated in 1999 to prepare for Y2K for bitcoins.

We should be so lucky

i think that it is worth thinking about this from the accounting perspective.
as jeff garzik pointed on github, banks have software (that they are not going to change, possibly EVER) that allows ONLY for two decimals. The number of integers is not limited, apparently. In this scenario, banks will have no problem processing 2097654.33 in bitcoin units, but will have problems with 2.09765433 in bitcoins.

Therefore, several points:

1. What would be wrong in making a switch just one time to microBTC (μBTC), with satoshis acting as cents/pennies?

2. purchasing as many as 1724 microBTC for a buck should not be a problem at all, quite the opposite, and could stimulate spending.

3. whether to give microBTC a new name is debatable (probably easier to still call it bitcoin and do a split in software, but it is unclear).

4. millieBTC is too short sighted (will work for a year or two?) and does not solve the banking problem, so it is not a long term solution.

You embody the very essence of cliche internet angst! Take a bow my friend! You win.

What is the problem, and who does it affect?


Milli and micro are hardly obscure; they're built into the core Bitcoin client, billions of people across the globe use them already.

But, the most important thing is - no one's "expected" to learn milli and micro. They can - and do - use whatever they're comfortable with. Plenty of people use "Satoshi" already. Plenty of people use mBTC. Personally, I use BTC because it's usually most convenient. Informal, ad hoc conventions will spring up - but they'll do that organically, with communities deciding informally what works for them. They don't - we don't - need a formal convention being imposed.


And who will perform this (presumably non-trivial) task?


I keep hearing about these people who "want" BTC without any reason. I remain unconvinced that they represent anything other than a very small part of the Bitcoin economy, or that they will ever represent a significant part of the economy. I mean, I understand that tourists might buy foreign currency on a whim, but for most people when they buy BTC (or JPY, or LTC, or RMB) they have a reason for it. They either need exactly 7.3 mBTC to buy something worth 7.3 mBTC, or they're investing and have some idea what they're investing in.


Yup, it's a common idiom. I think about "the pounds in my pocket" even when I'm down to only a few pence (I do the same with "euros", even though "euro" is officially the plural). Incidentally, people do spend hundreds, even thousands, of dollars on coins - they're investing in precious metals and are (hopefully!) aware of the value of the stuff they're investing in.


That modest conscious effort? Absolutely - and people are already doing it. It's just that they're coming up with their own solutions, solutions that work for them (even though they might seem bizarre to you and me). I'd like to step back and let them get on with it. A decentralised payment system and digital currency is a great idea - why would I want to centralise any aspect of it?

would be a good thing if possible

That makes as much sense as saying "kilometer" is too unwieldy of a term in describing terrestrial distances, therefore we should start calling kilometers "meters".

Small b bitcoin describes the protocol and a word attached to the value, big B Bitcoin will be a rare unit of measurement, such as the volume of trading at Bitstamp today was 16,000 Bitcoins, or that the Winklevoss Twins collectively own over 40,000 Bitcoins.  Regular people will spend 150 mBTC paying a monthly cell phone bill, or buy a new laptop for 1500 mBTC.

Yes, I want to call what we now call A) 1 satoshi or B) 100 satoshis a BITCOIN and what we now call a 'Bitcoin' should be called a "full _____ of Bitcoins". We could even call it a "Full bar of bitcoins".

Using the term bitcoin in the plural form should become rare.   Just like you don't go to the ATM to withdraw some monies, or get a drink of waters from a water fountain.


A milliBTC is going to become a common unit, since it is going to be more or less scaled to similar amounts of USD or EUR.   If you want to want to use a word for a milliBTC that does not have a current definition, more power to you.

No. This solves the problem by creating a much worse one.

You are expecting people to learn a whole new obscure aspect of a system which already functions cryptically by definition.

This essentially requires an entire re-branding.

People have been hearing "bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin" in the media. "Bitcoin" is what they are familiar with, if they decide to participate, it is "bitcoins" they they will want, not some impotent sounding mouthfull of garbage called a Mil-E-Bit-Coin.

They very concept of a coin is not consistent with something that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars. People already work their way around this. They talk about protecting or spending their "bitcoins" even when talking about less than 1BTC.

Making this change just requires a modest conscious effort to go in the direction with the least linguistic resistance. A true semantic stock split will catch on and take over on it's own. Just like tipping a boulder off the edge of a steep slope.

bitcoins "stock like split" it's mBTC

Simple, already implemented.. Just need mBTC to become the standard.  It will be done gradually, by exchanges and services, and users..

Already being adopted by some.. my client shows mBTC for few months now, im getting used to think in mBTC

Just saying... The term reeducation implies authoritarianism like Pol Pot's Cambodia or Mao Zedong's China.


I believe the language will develop naturally.  For one, if it becomes the dominant currency of the Internet, most people will be fine with using an abbreviation that is never spoken aloud.

Like Pol Pot? Um, no...

And if there is anything that early Bitcoin adopters will tend to have in common, it is the ability to quickly recognize a superior format. And if ten times as many new users adopt a new scheme everyone will follow. That's how language works.

Mil-e-bit-coin is just a really stupid thing to call a unit of currency. The fact that it is four syllables is but one of the many reasons why.

I'm not sure why this was deleted...