Topic: Bitcoin needs to do a "stock split" and add new (sub)names (Read 3312 times)

Thinking more about user-friendly names:
1. A bitbuck - maybe 1/1000th of a bitcoin.
2. A bitpound - maybe 1/100th of a bitcoin.
3. A bitloonie - maybe 1/10000th of a bitcoin.

Stuff like that.  Non-tech types will embrace a friendly naming system.  ;-)
 

I could not agree with you more. The best thing that could happen for bitcoin right now is for Mt. Gox to list prices in millibits.

mills, millibits, or millicoins seems likely.  I don't see anyone calling mBTC "one Bitcoin" though.  It is simply confusion without a purpose.  "Yeah send me 20 Bitcoins, of course not the Bitcoin on the client, you will need to change to mBTC or divide the amount I previously told you by 100, I just like calling mBTCs, "Bitcoins" to created added confusion for no reason or value".

As a experiment say I offered 1oz Silver Maple in the marketplace forum for 127 Bitcoins (without explanation these aren't really Bitcoins they are just my way of saying mBTC) how effective do you think that would be?  

For that reason I don't see BTC being anything but BTC = Bitcoin = 1/21,000,000th of the Bitcoin money supply.  Sure other units will develop and their own slang will develop two but that is different than doing a split or renaming Bitcoin.  Nobody likes working with very large or very small numbers so formal and informal naming conventions will develop.



* or whatever slang develops

Agreed. Language has a way of evolving on its own. How many people call text messages SMSs these days? Hmmm, just so long long as they don't start calling them "itty bitty coins."

I'm not advocating any deliberate change in the language of units of measure of Bitcoins, I'm just predicting that it'll happen organically. Because language often takes it's own direction, and it doesn't matter if there is unanimous agreement or not. When someone says they want 20 bitcoins for a pair of alpaca socks, the context will be enough for most people to realize they mean 20 mBTC.

It's obvious that later adapters will prefer to count coins at the level of mBTC because the human mind prefers whole numbers over decimals (567 mBTC is slightly more preferable than 0.567 BTC). The interesting question is, "What will the average person call that unit of measurement?" If Bitcoin truly starts to gain wide acceptance, I'd bet they won't pronounce it "m-B-T-C" That's 4 syllables, are you kidding me? Name a world currency that is more than 2 syllables long, because there's not any. But will people pronounce it as "m-bits", "bits", "mibs", "mits", or risk confusion as just say "bitcoins"?

Personally, I like "bits" because it's short, implies bitcoin, and the context should make it clear that it's not another currency. Just my two "bits"

Nothing against any of the other crypto currencies out there but the average person might think BTC's price is too high and opt for litecoin instead. I remember when Myspace was unstoppable ... but sadly so did they and they forgot to adapt when facebook came along. Btw one of the better bitcoin articles I've read from Jeff Tucker today at Laissez faire books.

http://lfb.org/today/what-bitcoin-is-teaching-us/

 

"old" and "new" will confuse like hell. the metric system is used in science and economy. no one needs to agree to
1 btc = 1000 mbtc
because it is a fact.
the rest of the issue is agreement in the community using the same language. the question is not "should we do it this way?" it´s:

mbtc or game over

What if everyone doesn't agree?  I don't.  So yes as I pointed out if you have complete unanimous agreement of every coinholders, merchant, developer, exchange, etc then sure you can make a change.  Baring that what happens when some sites start advertising prices in old BTC and some in new BTC?  Someone on new version of client sends 1 BTC to someone with newever version of client.  Each one things the other messed up because on their clients they see a different amount.    MtGox prices in "old BTC" but doesn't call it old BTC it simply is BTC and BTC-e prices in "new BTC" but also calls it BTC.

Quick 1.23 BTC is it old BTC or new BTC?

It isn't going to happen just like tomorrow we could decide a meter isn't a meter it is a "new meter" which will also confusingly be called a meter expect it is 3x as long as an "old meter" which will also be called a meter.  That could happen, but it won't because it would be stupid and pointless.


Fees have been reduced in the past, will be reduced again in the next version, and will likely be continually reduced and decentralized more in the future.   There is no required fee on high priority transactions.  The min mandatory fee only exists as a spam prevention mechanism to protect the network from Denial Of Service attacks.  It can be continually lowered to a point which balances the needs of the network with the need to protect the network.

Correct, so we could arbitrarily agree as a community that the old mBTC is the "New BTC" and that there are 21 Billion "New BTC" available. The clients could just change the format, and then we'd say that the new BTC was only divisible by 10^5. No miner agreement or fork necessary. Done. No chaos, destruction, or cats marrying dogs.

Of course, the real issue is that it becomes uneconomical to send less than 1 mBTC (100,000 Satoshis) and have it confirmed quickly due to fees that the client and/or miners require. Fees will only get more expensive as traffic increases. There are other threads looking at that issue though.

In that case, I propose that 10^-6 BTC = 1 Turing. 1,000,000 Turings = 1 BTC. The Turing can be broken into two decimal points. The unit "kiloturing" or KT should be the most commonly referred-to unit unless the price increases by a few more orders of magnitude, in which case the most commonly referred to unit will be the Turing itself.

10 Kiloturings is currently worth $2.

The Turing and the Kiloturing should be the only units needed, to preserve simplicity.

"One million dollars" is equal to "five million KT." The Kiloturing is within an order of magnitude of the dollar.

I posted this in the "Economics" sub-forum, as an attempt to standardize how we refer to small values of BTC (without touching the protocol at all).

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1776572

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It may seem complicated, but I think that with practice, this could be a manageable system for both online AND offline payments.  

Given that this is a global currency, and the metric system is used by the majority of the population, we should stick to a metric prefix system, similar to other ideas here in this thread.  I've added a few "rules" to help standardize and simplify the system.

Like so:

1 BTC = 1 Bit
0.1 BTC = 1 Decibit/Dec (Optional)
0.01 BTC = 1 Centibit/Cent
0.001 BTC = 1 Millibit/Mil
0.000,001 BTC = 1 Microbit/Micro
0.000,000,01 BTC = 1 Satoshi

In another form:

1 Bit = 10 Decs
1 Dec = 100 Cents
1 Cent = 100 Mils
1 Mil = 1,000 Micros
1 Micro = 100 Satoshi

Rules:  

1) The smallest unit possible is generally used.  Anything over 1 BTC is generally referred to in decimal (e.g. 1.35 BTC = "One point three five Bits")

2) Trailing zeroes should be used when interpretation of units is ambiguous or unclear. (See examples below)

3) Commas are used to the right of the decimal point every three spaces to assist unit assignment

4) Avoid awkward prices (e.g. 1.500,004,80 BTC).  Even so, could be read as "1.5 Bits and 480 Satoshi"

With this, you can easily speak lower prices without talking in decimals all the time. Generally, the fewer non-zero numbers in a BTC price, the better.

Examples:

0.40 BTC = 4 Decs OR 40 Cents
0.45 BTC = 45 Cents
0.452 BTC = 452 Mils
0.002,500 BTC = 2500 Micros OR 0.002,5 = "Two and a half Mils"
0.087 BTC = 87 Mils
0.000,346 BTC = 346 Micros
0.000,049 BTC = 49 Micros
0.000,000,12 = 12 Satoshi
0.000,003,12 BTC = 312 Satoshi

Thoughts, suggestions, criticisms? Having just 8 decimal places instead of 9 makes it slightly less intuitive than it could be when dealing with hundreds of Satoshi, but it's no different than saying that $1.32 is 132 cents.

Nothing needs to be converted.  Yes in the QT wallet you can have it display your balance as BTC, mBTC uBTC, or satohis it isn't converting your coins it is simply changing how they are displayed.

At the protocol level everything is already recorded in satoshis. Always.  Every tx since the very first block.  So if you receive 1 BTC it will be recorded in the blockchain as an unsigned 64bit integer 100,000,000.  Your client "knows" it takes 100,000,000 units to be a BTC and thus displays it as 1.0 BTC by default but you can easily change how it is displayed.  How it is displayed has no effect on how it is transmitted or stored in the blockchain.

I as many of you am looking around for a comprehensive answer to the decimal issue.
So far from what I read from "the BTC giants" is that BTC will never be split or in any other way be altered, i.e. There will never be any other unit of account (in the network or the blockchain) than BTC, not mBTC or satoshis. 

So, that leads me to the next part of my question; then the unit of account ( to satoshis or whatever) conversion happens at the individual transaction between buyer and seller? And if this is a correct understanding - in order to transact those individuals need what? Is it sufficient with any wallet? I cannot see this option in mine at least....

I have also heard that all wallets are set up to handle mBTC etc.  So does that mean that I as a potential buyer of whatever can "flick" a switch in my wallet and I have all my BTC turned into Satoshis?

Thanks for your input

(m/u)BTC right now needs some serious evangelism. The other thing I tell people is that 35 years ago, someone told me to send them an email - I had no clue what they meant. Same with text messages and mp3s 15 years back. These are still the very early days, where I'm guessing one in a thousand people have heard of bitcoins. Hopefully the end result is similar for BTC. This has the potential to be the next X industry, think cars, computers, oil etc. But that next step will require some nurturing. The people who can seriously influence the market are the people who 1) have money and 2) want somewhere to put it to work. The mainstream financial media will never mention it because the stockbrokers they cater to can't sell shares in bitcoins. Yet. When a bitcoin ETF starts up is the day when you know it's arrived. Like gold and silver five years ago, BTC is too damn hard to buy at the moment.

I think the key is how you describe it from the beginning. Try this:
"A bitcoin is like a one ounce gold coin, although it actually works better. There aren't that many bitcoins. There are 500 ounces of gold in the world for every bitcoin. An ounce of gold is currently valued at about $1600. A bitcoin is less than $200. The millibitcoin, which is one thousandth of a bitcoin, is more akin to the U.S. dollar and currently costs 19 cents."
Of course, you'll want to balance that with a realistic discussion of the risks.

and i agree even more than that.

I just wish  I guess you meant $0.19 per mBTC!

I just thought it relevant to cross post, let's call it a branding exercise not a share split, the new values all have names already, I like the penny stock idea listed below.


*edit* It's hard to keep up with deflation. $0.014 $0.019 per μBTC

I agree about the names.  Yes, we have the 1 BTC, plus the satoshi.  It would be useful to have a name - "a dime" or some shorthand.  Yes, it means the same thing, but this is a marketing issue so your parents or grandparents can say "I'd like one BitEagle" which is 1/100th of a BTC.  Or whatever. 

It is all about ease of use for the non-tech user.
 

Hmmmm, consider that various countries around the world are inflating their currencies to oblivion to get rid of debt. Never say never!!!