Topic: Good news! Gavin Andresen: I think everybody should switch to talking in "bits" - page 2. (Read 3913 times)

OP is the perfect example of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Gavin is writing code, so his opinion about the best name is just the same as anyone else's.

I agree we have to name a new unit but definately not bits.

The term Bits is hated by about 50% of the community.

We will not be measuring the amount of bitcoin being transacted in terms of satoshi anytime soon. Another issue is that using Satoshi, makes satoshi (the creator of bitcoin) into a profit that he does not appear to want and creates a liability for bitcoin in general in the event that he is ever doxxed.

Well I do admire Gavin, actually, but I'm still not interested in using "bit" as a unit at this time.  I'm content transacting in fractions of a Bitcoin - it's very analogous to a world where we might transact in milligrams of gold or something.

I would like this too. Let's do it. It needs a few key players to switch over, all the exchanges mainly, then XE and then most of us.

And SR

Sadly agree, im not convinced to bits yet... maybe its too fast

it will be satoshi.

Redundant topics, ugh... https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-difference-of-opinions-at-the-bitcoin-foundation-regarding-the-xbt-proposal-830600

The cool thing is that free people don't have to care what Gavin thinks if they don't want to.

Good freaking luck. I think there is a rough consensus that some units between Bitcoin and Satoshi might be useful. However, what units these will be seems to be quite contentious.

Frankly, I prefer 'mills' (mBTC) and 'mikes' (uBTC), as it reuses existing patterns well-known to anyone who has had a need to handle numbers of anything over a range of magnitudes (i.e. the SI system, used nearly universally in other areas of measurement). I may be in the minority. As such, I recognize the need to sit back and let consensus emerge. Trying to force the issue will not be resistant to whatever socially-selected solution eventually emerges.

this needs to be thought out carefully

i think it would be appropriate to have both BTC and BITS

anything > 0.1BTC is expressed in BTC

anything < 0.1BTC is expressed in BITS

or maybe you can display price like   0.2BTC and 1726BITS , kinda like you say 26$ and 75cents, idk..

point is these standards to be though up, layout out clearly, and agreed upon, this is not an easy task.

if we can  layout out some clear standards, update some key wallets (qt , blockchain, etc..), get some websites to adopt this new way of working ,make some documentation, make some fancy pictures outlining theses standards. this BTC Vs BITS debate might be settled once and for all.


its imposible to get all sites to change how they display BTC prices. some use BTC some mBTC some uBTC, no one has a clue what to do so everyone is doing there own thing. this has to stop and we have to figure this out somehow.

this threads a start, but there have been 100 like it, all it does is show that everyone wants to see some changes in this aspect of bitcoin, but whats beening done to change it?

dose bitcoinstore display prices in BTC or BITS?
dose blockchine.info's wallet display balance as 1.3BTC 230579BITS

no!

lets make a new thread, lets figure out EXACTLY what we want the change to be and how it will be rolled out, and then lets put extreme pressure to get these sites to implement this new scheme

rant over,
sry for all the typos,
thank you.

1,000 bits (0.001) is actually USD 0.385 (38 cents) at today's price. Still not enough for a coffee though.

Wow, Gavin gave himself a title. I'm sorry, but if this means anything it is that Gavin seems to be in need of admiration.
Frankly, I don't understand the hype about Gavin. There are other developers as well, who are not member of a highly questionable organization (The Bitcoin Foundation), don't receive pay, but still contribute significantly.

We don't need provisions on how to call Bitcoin's smaller units. Names will emerge naturally. I can't see any advantage of introducing "bits", because we already have Satoshi as a name for the smallest unit.

ya.ya.yo!

lol, yeah might have to wait a few years for that!

4/10 of a cent? Clearly not Starbucks at that price.

shouldn't there be another Pump&Dump-Coin already?

Yes. Bits are good... definitely
But if we shift to bits, how will altcoins like Dogecoin survive   ?
That will kill dogecoin for sure! That is so cruel, cos I also like dogecoin.

BINGO......that's how I took it also. Did you also notice the one year insinuation?

What about a completely different suggestion I have not heard before.

We clearly have a problem that nobody has been able to figure out how to fix well enough using traditional way of thinking. So thinking outside a box could be in order. We could start a completely different style to fit our needs and also to emphasize that bitcoins are really different from traditional money.

It is inspired by the european style of using SI suffixes when dealing with resistor values and wildly varying orders of magnitude on values of other electronic components. Pretty much the same problem that bitcoins are facing. 2200 ohm can be written as 2k2

We could start using format of xxxBTCxxxmxxxμ.

1 BTC in the new format is 1BTC.
0.1 BTC in the new format is BTC100m
0.01 BTC in the new format is BTC10m
0.001 BTC in the new format is BTC1m
0.0001 BTC in the new format is BTC100μ
0.00001 BTC in the new format is BTC10μ
0.000001 BTC in the new format is BTC1μ
1.234BTC in the new format is 1BTC234m
0.001234BTC in the new format is BTC1m234μ

The last shows the biggest improvent compared to any other scheme I have seen and it is the last one that probably is the one that faces the biggest need to have a good solution for in future years.

One of the advantages is that this really does not break anything. It is just a completely optional way of writing the values. All previous concepts of writing about bitcoins remain totally valid and unchanged.

I'll stick with satoshi.

Thank you.

It is just the smallest unit. I think.