Topic: BTC must split into smaller units to survive (Read 661 times)
Yes, if we want Bitcoin as a currency (which was the plan) then of course Bitcoin must split into smaller units. People are considering different altcoins just because of Bitcoin's higher value in a very small figure. If we keep thinking Bitcoins as a way of investment then I don't think you could make it a currency. Which is ultimately a threat to Bitcoin survive.
I propose a hardfork, 1 BTC (old) = 1000 BTC (new) 
Isn't it just the same if you use satoshi instead of 1000 BTC? And i think it's not useful anyway since the transaction fees are too much, i guess Bitcoin transaction is only for millionaires because they can transact bigger Bitcoin with just a small fees. Bitcoin is for large transactions. Litecoin for small.
I think you are right since the transaction fees is killing the short time traders. If LN was there, it shouldn't be a problem anymore but i guess we couldn't it but to wait. Bitcoin is for large transactions. Litecoin for small.
They never use to say that and they said "Virtually free transaction fees" in the white paper
and if our peasant amounts of money are too small for them we could always move to ETH or
Ripple and use a single currency for all our needs.
I am no stock broker but I look at the charts and I see fees up, BTC price down but the
chart that i want to see is "Loss of trust" in Bitcoin development team
Why not use/trade in smaller unit satoshis instead of BTC..it will look cheaper
Ofcourse, the fee is killer
Ofcourse, the fee is killer
That's what annoys me so much about this "unit bias" discussion. The reality is that no one can even spend "bits" due to network fees. Spending a "bit" means spending 500+ bits to get a transaction confirmed (for median transaction size). Smaller units like satoshis or "bits" might make sense once Lightning is widely deployed on the mainnet. But aren't we putting the cart before the horse?
It just seems like some early adopters, salty about the astronomical gains in altcoins, now want in on the action. I've never once heard anybody use the term "bits" outside of this discussion about how to control newbie price perception. I'm with Keonne on this one:
Quote
BIP176 - do not want 👎 If decimals confuse you, you shouldn't be using Bitcoin in the first place. The unit bias argument is completely nonsense. Stop trying to make bitcoin into some family friendly party trick
People should just learn to use decimals.....
Why not use/trade in smaller unit satoshis instead of BTC..it will look cheaper
Ofcourse, the fee is killer
Ofcourse, the fee is killer
I wouldn't go as far as saying it has to be split into smaller units to survive, but it would most certainly help on the road to mass adoption.
I think this will be one of the next gimmicks seen in mid/large cap altcoins. They'll fork to dilute the supply, while simultaneously inflating user holdings by the same proportion. The price will fall, say, 1000x based on the dilution. Given the state of the markets and newbie perceptions about unit prices, that alone could provide another 100x gains or better over time. It wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Bitcoin isn't a gimmicky altcoin, so we're not going to do that.
But I have to say, I'm very disappointed in those that promoted and merged BIP 176, especially because it seemed like the motivation for doing so was related to this "price perception" problem. "Bits" is inaccurate, and we already use "satoshis." It's off-putting to see in the GUI.
I cannot see this happen because we committed to the fundamental rule that there will only be 21 million BTC.
Bitcoin is for large transactions. Litecoin for small.
Bitcoin is for large transactions. Litecoin for small.
You can use satoshi as a unit instead of BTC if you like. I don't think unit is that important...
MAh, I don't think split it into smaller units will help it.
No not when it comes to moving the decimal place but they need to split the block-chain up
and move towards using a block-matrix because this is the reason Bitcoin will not scale
plus they knew this nine years ago.
Forget Lightning, it's a sticking plaster that uses mini-banks called hubs and if block-chain is so good
like they keep saying then lets keep it all on block with maybe a minimum value that can be sent as
something like $0.10 to stop spam.
Ripple says you can send real small amounts but it would not work for me when i tried to send
$0.50 to a test wallet but it worked fine with $1.00 so they need calling out on this deception
I've listen that everybody trying to solve BTC's problems, but I don't think it could be solved, unless LN could do some amazing job to BTC.
Well, Lightning does actually permit milli-satoshi values. Which is, essentially, splitting the smallest unit (100 millionth of 1 BTC) into a thousand smaller sub-divisions (100 billionths of 1BTC)
Has it really taken 3 pages of the thread for someone to mention this?
MAh, I don't think split it into smaller units will help it.
I've listen that everybody trying to solve BTC's problems, but I don't think it could be solved, unless LN could do some amazing job to BTC. If it don't solve the speed/fees problem, its domination will go lower and lower, until disappears.
I've listen that everybody trying to solve BTC's problems, but I don't think it could be solved, unless LN could do some amazing job to BTC. If it don't solve the speed/fees problem, its domination will go lower and lower, until disappears.
hoping this could happn
Maybe, but splitting will surely lead to more confusion. I don't know much about the technical part of bitcoin but as a layman, I doubt it's going to solve the problem.
we are thinking bitcoin to spilt but USD is losing its value every day because of bitcoin denomination sooner most of the purchases will happen in Bitcoin demonisation not in USD that is when Bitcoin really won the game
We need Bitcoin Price Index showing price of other alts relative to Bitcoin supply - this must be displayed everywhere along with USD price. That could do the trick
I just think everyone who uses btc, should give the amount in satoshi or mBTC
I wouldn't go as far as saying it has to be split into smaller units to survive, but it would most certainly help on the road to mass adoption.
It would be better if people end up sending fewer satoshis lets say 1000 instead of 10000 than more with all the 00000 before the real amount. It can become quite confusing and I know of people who have screwed up this way.
It would be better if people end up sending fewer satoshis lets say 1000 instead of 10000 than more with all the 00000 before the real amount. It can become quite confusing and I know of people who have screwed up this way.
Interestin way of thinking, however different blockchains can not represent same coins in the same time. Unless they can work as a side chain (maybe). As soon as you fork a coin, you end up with two different blockchains which have different values as well as security levels. This idea can be possible in the future with implementing a few extra technologies.
Jimmy Song proposed a BIP that has to do with this issue:
Read the BIP here:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015399.html
Read the BIP here:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015399.html
could work but only if you can efficiently send individual bits. then and only then we could have the first line on CMC look like this
Bits $2.047.981.767.000 $0.14767 $160.241.500.000 16.792.400.000.000 BIT +1000,99%
Professional trader noticing what I have noticed in OP
https://www.coindesk.com/weathering-altcoin-shitstorm-investing-next-one/
"It seems ridiculous to say, but the cheaper the asset, the greater the chance of a return. And when I said cheap, I'm not referring to a fundamental measure of value like a value investor would (P/BV, P/E, etc). I'm referring to its price.
A chart of returns over the past seven days paints this picture. There's a direct negative correlation between the price of the token and return. It's scary, but it's unfortunately true."
"Investors trying to find fundamental value are ripping their eyes out. XRP, with legitimately zero fundamental usage (see below), just passed BTC in diluted market cap."
https://www.coindesk.com/weathering-altcoin-shitstorm-investing-next-one/
"It seems ridiculous to say, but the cheaper the asset, the greater the chance of a return. And when I said cheap, I'm not referring to a fundamental measure of value like a value investor would (P/BV, P/E, etc). I'm referring to its price.
A chart of returns over the past seven days paints this picture. There's a direct negative correlation between the price of the token and return. It's scary, but it's unfortunately true."
"Investors trying to find fundamental value are ripping their eyes out. XRP, with legitimately zero fundamental usage (see below), just passed BTC in diluted market cap."
Jump to: