Topic: Bitcoin needs something equivalent to a stock split - page 4. (Read 5462 times)

Good thoughts here.

I agree, no change to protocol or code needed.
Issue is semantics and marketing.

IMO, here's what needs to happen:

Major exchange need to start publishing prices in millibits on their homepages.
Then average investor goes there and says hmmm... $6.34 ?  cool... let me get some.

in the wall street markets
they do not call a gram of gold dust a 'gold brick' its just called dust
they do not call an ingot of gold a 'gold brick' its just called an ingot.

we do not need to call a smaller amount of bitcoin, a bitcoin..
people are already calling smaller amounts bitmils/mBTC or ksat/uBTC

the same as gold, first its called by mathmatical names.. then people call it by common names. where each country has their own slang term

take FIAT for instance. dollar notes are called benjamins, lincolns, etc. in the UK. a monkey, a pony, etc.

the bitcoin protocol/qt client does not need to do anything. if you look at the client, you can already use the dropdown menu to change between BTC, mBTC. uBTC.

nothing in the bitcoin client needs to change. just peoples social interactions and uses of the names needs to change.which can be done with our mouths. with no requirement of the bitcoin-dev's time

It's relatively easy to get everyone in the Bitcoin community to switch to mBTC.


...compared getting the MEDIA to switch.


so I like your idea. The BTC "stock split" would be a news story for 2 weeks tops. Then again, we'll have to get used to correcting the "LOL Bitcoin dropped by 50%, Im not buying into that scam LOL" crowd.

It seems like most people are hung up on the idea of getting more people to buy bitcoin, hence driving up the price. Bitcoin was not meant to be an investment. We need to focus on ideas to get people to USE Bitcoin. As a natural result, the more people use it, the more valuable it becomes and, thus, those smart enough to buy and hodl early will be rewarded. But please do not think of Bitcoin as an investment vehicle and then try to get others to buy into it. That just reeks of a pyramid scheme.

I actually like this idea..

I understand it. What you do not understand is how fatal the idea of a "coin" that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars is to the continued adoption of Bitcoin, a brand which leveraged the human tendency to ascribe value to collectibles beyond their mere utilitarian value, in order to to gain traction. That same leverage is needed to continue adoption, and fractional ownership does not push the same buttons in our ape brains.


Yes, but it is a much smaller problem than trying to convince people to collect .001 or .0001 Bitcoins by naming them something else. This is essentially a re-branding. It would just as hard as inventing a whole new coin, as far as public perception goes. And at least then you could make up less cumbersome names for units. I mean, 'Mil-E-Bit-Coin'? Come on...



You sound like Bernanke talking about the Fed  


If even a minority of existing users switch to the new labels, then the holdouts will be quickly overwhelmed by new users choosing the more intuitive language, assuming the adoption rate holds steady. The scale is so immensely different that context will easily show which system a communication is using. Do you really think someone is accidentally going to sell their private jet for a 10,000 Satoshis, because of a misunderstanding of folk names?


It is a solution that tackles the core of the problem, unlike all of the others, which is that for an item to be consistent with the concept of a 'coin', ownership of multiples of the unit needs to be realistically attainable.

I think that proposal on github is a great idea.
It plays on psychology very well. You bought 1 BTC, but now you are a millionaire (in "new" XBT)
It will allow people to make small purchases of bitcoin without thinking that they are getting something fractional, which could be thought of as not valuable.
Of course, things will appear expensive at first: a cup of coffee for 5000 XBT, but it will change going forward, hopefully.
Then, institutions will trade "whole" BTC just like they do BRKA-A (at $183,914 a share)

Oh good, this topic again.

Here's the deal: stocks are split because investors can't buy in partial amounts. With bitcoin, you can buy as little or as much as you want, so making a bitcoin "split" doesn't.make.sense.

It wouldn't have much effect on price either, because the market cap would still be the exact same, we'd just start defining a "bitcoin" differently, confusing the fuck out of everyone in the process (as if bitcoin isn't confusing enough for newcomers as it is).

I wasn't clear there. I'm not writing those people off. I think the technology will spawn user friendly applications that anyone can use. But I don't think it's effective to teach some people how the protocol works. Kinda like the internet before the Netscape browser. You could connect via command line, but it was not something that many people could do.  It took new tools rather learning for most users.

Then buy 25 mBTC or 250 mBTC.  :-) 

Your asking for the equivalent of a stock split on 1 oz of gold.

What you fail to realize is there is no "we".  You will never convince every single user to start calling a satoshi a "Bitcoin".  Names only have meaning if they are consistent.  Imagine if at the same time there was more than one definition for a meter, it would be kinda useless to provide units in meters (which definition of meters).  In centralized institutions the central body can proclaim a new change in value (like redefining a meter, or kilogram) but that doesn't work in a decentralized network.

Can you imagine would utterly confusing it would be if everyone you talked to had a different definition of what 1 BTC was?

A BTC is NEVER EVER going to change.  To do so would require a consensus, it would require rewriting everything that has been written.  It would still lead to confusion and chaos when people looked at outdated articles talking about (there will never be more than 21M BTC and the person own more than that himself).  It simply is not going to happen.

Most of the time you can't get 100 bitcoiners to agree on just about anything but somehow you are going to get millions of users to simultaneously change their definition of what a Bitcoin is?  Really?  That seems a viable solution to you?

Everyone is talking about this, but not coming upon or considering the necessary solution, which is this:

We need a semantic change, nothing programmatic needs to happen to the core protocol.

We need to change what we call a 'Bitcoin'. It should be much smaller, possibly what we now call a Satoshi, or 10 or 100 of what we now call a Satoshi. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. To stay consistent with the concept of coin, 'Bitcoins' need to be something that people can acquire many of. The rest of the denominations should be ONE OR AT MOST TWO SYLLABLES. They should not be wholly invented, they should be adapted from popular language. A "grand" for 1000, or other simple common names for powers of ten from the top common globally used languages.

What we currently call a Bitcoin should be called something else. "A full ____ of Bitcoins". I like 'Satoshi', although something else would be less confusing. Think of it and explain it like a bar of gold.

A Proposal for the Mitigation of Bitcoin's Linguistic Transaction Costs

I can see it now:
1) Consensus leads to mBTC preference over BTC
2) Alt-coin pump-and-dump fanatics realize that the minimum lowest purchase price on any exchange is now 0.00000001 mBTC instead of 0.00000001 BTC
3) Every new alt-coin has >quintillion coin total supply

IMHO,  I think there will be a point at which btc to the USD will be less volatile.   If it is around $1000/btc, then eventually people that use both currencies will think in terms of some unit, such that the milliBTC (with perhaps a more friendly name) is worth around $1.

The attitude of "if you're not smart enough, then f@#k you" is not the way to go.  If you want Bitcoin to be successful then it's going to need to be made easier for people.

I think we need to unify around using mBTC instead of BTC, that's the simpler solution compared to a "stock split" type option.  We may need to split eventually, but it most likely won't be necessary for a long time.