Topic: BTC must split into smaller units to survive - page 2. (Read 671 times)

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

Now.. if you think that a hardfork is a good idea, I think you are a bit delusional to think it would end up well. We would end up with 2 Bitcoins (not counting the existing forks) because once again, a lot of people would be against the idea, so the best way to do this is to standardize a smaller unit of value within interfaces and not change the actual protocol.

Personally im used to dealing with small amounts of satoshis and a lot of 0's.. after so many years I got used to it.

I also think that if other coins eg Litcoin, Dash etc, surpass bitcoin ,there may face similar issues as segwit and many hard forks .As it stand now,Bitcoin has gone to the level where those segwit  hard forks may not make much impart in bringing down the price,as in a hardfork, 1 BTC old= 1000 BTC new,but there could be a solition that may resolved these issues later .

+1
Insulting others who have a different perspective and act like the smartest person here, it's not a good way to start a discussion with those words.
if Op really thinks it will work, just ask core developers to do so, doubt they will approve it though.
Change the amount of bitcoin from 1 to 1000 doesn't solve the problem of bitcoin transaction, even though it may seem cheap and more people will see it as a bunch of numbers to buy, but it will add the backlog on the mempool without proper scale solution implemented yet > more adopters but the network still on current condition = transaction fees increase even higher and confirmation time become longer.

XRP is not blockchain tech, it's centralised and hence censorable. Any gains in value are temporary, and besides, Bitcoin circumvents the Ripple use case anyway.



Thank god for that

Well, you got a point but....BTC is not getting any dough right now, so having the high price is not as good as having a high market cap

I will stop posting here, just one last post. If nothing is done, it is possible that in the next few months, maybe weeks, BTC will be surpassed by XRP and a bunch of other coins and drops to under 10% market cap

Once the top positions have been filled by others, the king status will be gone. Already BTC owners lose many billions due to this idiocy. If BTC had split in early 2017, from 1000 to 1, it would now be at $100. Our 100 000$ BTC, would already be here.

To illustrate my point and as a final wakeup call here is a pic of CMC, "all coins" then sorted by circulation - reverse. Up to 1000% in 1 day, up to 2000% in 7 days, this is money that BTC owners lose due to all the autistic denial of being "KING". BTC domination down to 33% Cheers.

Some coinz do all the work that BTC has done in 2017, in 10 days. DIX asset - not even a website - rubbish - but 2500% in a week.  

https://imgur.com/3SgMRTJ

Sorry I can't  agree with you .
I am considering it's the most high price of BTC  attracting the media and encourage them to report BTC when it hit a new record,it will let more people know BTC.

That's only during a particular phase of the speculative mania. I first got involved with Bitcoin at the height of the April 2013 bubble. My first inclination was to buy LTC because it was "cheap" and possibly "the next Bitcoin." I paid dearly for that mistake, and over the next year year I immersed myself in all things cryptocurrency. In the end, I came to realize that Bitcoin is by far the most reliable blockchain and store of value in the space. There is a learning curve here. "Cheap price" is no replacement for brilliant and driven developers. Newcomers to the space will learn that over time, and likely by buying into projects based on nothing more than unit price. That will come back to bite them.


No thanks. This whole "we need to rush things and make gimmicks to compete with altcoins" attitude is destructive and divisive.


How so?

Sorry for the undertone then. That is absolutely not what I intended. I am only pissed off that some tokens are so successful just because they look cheap. I wrote that in a bad mood. It is more cynicism than anything. 

LOL  

yes that would help beating XRP but Bitcoin is not meant to function atomically. Satoshis are there so you have almost no rounding errors and high precision when converting fiat/altcoin into Bitcoin.

Also I found that extremely large circulations are problematic because people have difficulties reading such numbers. I believe anything beyond a trillion is too high. There are

21 000 000 000 000 00 satoshis, this is not good, will appear as scientific notation (1e##) on CMC charts, not good for Earthlings.

A Satoshi is a small unit. Why not use Bitcoin to describe the currency ( like Sterling or Renminbi), and Satoshi as the unit ( like Pound or Yuan).

THIS!!!!!!

Byteball is brilliant, beats XRP in each and every way

Why is XRP number 2? Why is Byteball not over 100 000$ per GBYTE? Circulation wise it should be.

It is not, because I am right and the "mBTC" bullcrap is not working. Stellar, Cardano, Iota, Bytecoin, Doge, so many examples proving my point....

Are you pulling my leg?!

Using millibitcoin or whatever, is not going to change anything

On CMC you must have a lot of units, but people look at the full units. What you are saying is, sell gold by counting atoms to make it look cheaper, no, this won't work if everybody else is selling copper, sand or dogcrap by the ounce.

Using mikes or millies is not a solution

The solution is splitting 21 000 000 BTC (with 1e8 satoshis divisbilty) into 21 000 000 000 BTC (with 1e8 satoshis divisibility)

Block reward would then be 12500 BTC per block, fees? Good question. Perhaps such a split could help reducing fees too.

Reducing the divisibility leads to rounding issues, fee issues, dust issues and fucking no one will fall for that anyways...people do not want to pay 16000 for 1 BTC, and they won't pay 16 for a millie because they know it is 0.001 BTC. People may be stupid, but not THAT stupid.

Mark my words, if such a split is not done, it is only a matter of time until crap like XRP is on top of CMC

And yes, I define success = ranking in CMC, just like 99.99% of earthlings  

Pretty sure, just announcing such a Bitcoin "stock split" would result in 25000+ prices. Even Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has done it (B series) because they know that a share that costs several 10 000$ are not attractive to retail investors!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_split

I've NEVER liked that and have actively ignored it, discouraged it's use, and attempted to kill it off.

I realize I'm probably fighting a losing battle here, it's difficult to unscramble the egg, but I'm still hoping that I can get enough newbies and others that aren't yet familliar with the "bits" term to start using millibits, millies, millibitcoins, etc so that the term "bits" as 100 Satoshis begins to sound awkward and wrong to a significant percentage of users someday.  At best perhaps I can hope that it will become a regional Chicagoland thing.

It sounds good, but "bits" is already in use for "100 Satoshis". That makes 1 millibit 0.000000001BTC. Kilobits could actually work, it has the the same as millibitcoin, but sounds better.

How about "millibits".  That's short.  It's rather catchy, and (at least to someone that speaks english with a Chicago accent) it rolls of the tongue nicely.

I'm open to other slang terms as well. My point is that people have been using slang terms for money for centuries.  We don't HAVE to use the formal name if we don't like how the formal name sounds when we say it out loud.

I propose to just change the units in your wallet: 1 BTC now = 1000 mBTC now. And that is exactly what I've been doing since I started using Bitcoin (almost 3 years ago). When I started, one base unit was worth $0.20, now it's $16.40.
I find it much more convenient to have units worth about the same as a dollar/euro, but we can't keep forking Bitcoin every time it goes up in value. Some shitforks are already doing this, but that doesn't make it Bitcoin.

The only thing I don't like, is how "millibitcoin" sounds when I say it out loud. It's too long and not nearly as catchy as "Bitcoin".
During my time as a Mod at Rollin.io, I've seen many people ask questions like: "how many mBTC is a BTC?". I don't know if they're just dumb, uneducated, or used to imperial units, as to me it's just common sense to use SI-units.

That still doesn't sound right to me.

As irrational as it is, I've heard it from several people too: "I'll buy some Verge, just for fun, because it's so cheap". People who say this don't realize the total supply is 1000 times bigger than with Bitcoin.
Of course it's not rational, but most people aren't rational when it comes to money.

I think leopard2's point is that all exchanges call it "Bitcoin", they don't list smaller units than that.
The Byteball-thread has a lot of discussion about changing the unit from GBYTE ($870) to MBYTE ($0.87). I used to think this doesn't matter, but I've come to realize it does matter. Changing the units in my own wallet doesn't change how it's listed and traded.

On the other hand, how nice is it that 1 Bitcoin has a very large value, and that value is (most of the time) going up? An average car: 2 Bitcoins! Maybe somewhere in the future we can say the same about a house: just 2 Bitcoins!
That makes Bitcoins more like gold bars: everybody knows a gold bar is expensive, and everybody knows you can buy gold in smaller portions than big bars.

I support the proposed hardfork of 1 BTC (old or legacy) = 1000 BTC (new) which will spicy up the smaller payment issue than the other forks SegWit etc. But I wonder when such fork will end cause another 3 forks will happen this January. Meanwhile, in other to achieve the proposed hardfork the bitcoin transaction stuck/delay need to be fix.

The providers of wallet software will learn to adjust the UI so it displays a denomination by default that is appropriate to their users. The Satoshi is a sufficiently small unit for the foreseeable future (even if BTC were $1,000,000.00 each a Satoshi would be $.01). The market reporting and exchanges will adjust similarly. We can help them along by talking about "mBTC" amongst ourselves and in public, rather than BTC. We can make suggestions to the exchanges, publications and UI developers as well, but they will find their way even if we don't push.

The worst news is, all people are thinking that the price or the value of the bitcoin will only keep rising. Most of the people involved in bitcoin sees Bitcoins as a way of investment. The forget that the primary characteristic of bitcoin is that it's a currency, not a property or asset. And those people still use fiat money if they want to spend their money. In order to get that fiat money they sell their bitcoins. They don't use the bitcoins for buying things (of course it's not possible every time). We witness the nature of the fall in last December which indicates that bitcoin doesn't follow a constant upward trend.

I have seen this coming for awhile now.  When I first started BTC, buying 3-5 BTC was considered more like a "change" transaction (small annoyance amount).  Now we are at the point where a full coin or more is only exchanged by a small percentage of transactions and its getting more and more scarce.  The concerns I have as I watch this unfold or for how transaction expenses are going to play out.  Nobody in the game over the long haul is going to get confused over Mike's, millies, you insert the new buzzword name here, etc.....   The reality regardless of the "name" is that we are transacting with a fraction of a coin and now the big consideration is how much is the cost to move that fraction to the new receiving address in the blockchain?  As it stands I am using BTC for my longterm holdings but short term I use BCH because transactions move for "cheap" and when you are talking about a hundred dollar item that is a tiny BTC fraction.  I am not a BCH lover or anything.  I was lucky enough to score a "free" pile of them by having BTC in the chain before the split.  Figure I may as well use BCH cheap transactions for little stuff and wait and watch how this all goes.