Author

Topic: Let's sats (Read 1301 times)

legendary
Activity: 2413
Merit: 1003
November 03, 2014, 09:02:43 PM
#12
well, the easiest way would be to add zeros. you would alter the code so 1BTC will be worth 1000BTC. nothing actualy changed (since you could also cut 3 zeros after the comma)

This is more difficult in practice than in theory. If Bitcoin were a centralised organisation — like a company — then the CEO would announce the stock split and everyone would have to follow.

But unfortunately, Bitcoin is decentralised, and no one has the authority to announce this change.
We have to find a solution that allows for a gradual, organical transition (as opposed to a coordinated switchover).


well, who are the devs? they are some kind of centralization. community wouldn't be forced to update to the new version they make, but it probably would.
member
Activity: 69
Merit: 10
November 03, 2014, 08:56:35 PM
#11
well, the easiest way would be to add zeros. you would alter the code so 1BTC will be worth 1000BTC. nothing actualy changed (since you could also cut 3 zeros after the comma)

This is more difficult in practice than in theory. If Bitcoin were a centralised organisation — like a company — then the CEO would announce the stock split and everyone would have to follow.

But unfortunately, Bitcoin is decentralised, and no one has the authority to announce this change.
We have to find a solution that allows for a gradual, organical transition (as opposed to a coordinated switchover).
legendary
Activity: 2413
Merit: 1003
November 03, 2014, 08:41:24 PM
#10
well, the easiest way would be to add zeros. you would alter the code so 1BTC will be worth 1000BTC. nothing actualy changed (since you could also cut 3 zeros after the comma)
member
Activity: 69
Merit: 10
November 03, 2014, 08:36:30 PM
#9
You sugested to use Satoshis, so there would be no "Bitcoin" anymore

I admit that — when "millibitcoin" and "microbitcoin" drop out of use — the word "bitcoin" would appear less often. Undecided

But what's the alternative? "Milli-" and "micro-" are too technical, so I want to do away with them.

EdIt: Bitcoin would be a multiplier like saying "a million (dollars)"

Yeah, that's a good thing! It creates a positive association with the term "bitcoin".

In today's world we talk about millionaires. In the future (when bitcoin's value appreciates) we might talk about bitcoinaires. Grin
legendary
Activity: 2413
Merit: 1003
November 03, 2014, 08:10:02 PM
#8
that's actualy a very nice proposal, but Bitcoiners love their Bitcoin, it's not a racional decision. Community would never give the "Bitcoin" up

But we don't need to give up BTC. I don't want to give up bitcoin either.

What I want to give up is "mBTC" and "µBTC".

You sugested to use Satoshis, so there would be no "Bitcoin" anymore


EdIt: Bitcoin would be a multiplier like saying "a million (dollars)"
member
Activity: 69
Merit: 10
November 03, 2014, 07:52:01 PM
#7
that's actualy a very nice proposal, but Bitcoiners love their Bitcoin, it's not a racional decision. Community would never give the "Bitcoin" up

But we don't need to give up BTC. I don't want to give up bitcoin either.

What I want to give up is "mBTC" and "µBTC".
member
Activity: 69
Merit: 10
November 03, 2014, 07:49:10 PM
#6
you didn't understand ,bitcoin should be expensive and desirable, satoshis are too small

When something expensive is desired, we still have whole BTCs. The proposed units (ksat & Msat) are intended for everyday transactions, where smaller units are useful.
legendary
Activity: 2413
Merit: 1003
November 03, 2014, 07:47:01 PM
#5
that's actualy a very nice proposal, but Bitcoiners love their Bitcoin, it's not a racional decision. Community would never give the "Bitcoin" up
newbie
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
November 03, 2014, 06:47:39 PM
#4
no, because: people want to buy bitcoin, not satoshis

"People want to buy gold, not troy ounces."

Roll Eyes



(A similiar case could be made for "Sterling" versus "pound", "Renminbi" versus "yuan", "power" versus "Watt", etc...)


you didn't understand ,bitcoin should be expensive and desirable, satoshis are too small
member
Activity: 69
Merit: 10
November 03, 2014, 06:15:00 PM
#3
no, because: people want to buy bitcoin, not satoshis

"People want to buy gold, not troy ounces."

Roll Eyes



(A similiar case could be made for "Sterling" versus "pound", "Renminbi" versus "yuan", "power" versus "Watt", etc...)
newbie
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
November 03, 2014, 06:02:57 PM
#2
Previously I criticised other proposals for improving bitcoin denominations, so fairness requires that I also lay out my opinion to be criticised by others.



First of all, here's the current bitcoin unit system as used in most wallets, etc.:

[base unit] = 1     BTC
              0.001 BTC = 1     mBTC
                          0.001 mBTC = 1    µBTC
                                       0.01 µBTC = 1 sat


This system has some flaws:

  • It is a top-down system, i.e. we start with a large unit and subdivide it further and further. The subunits are thus designated as fractions of the base unit; but the human brain prefers to deal with multiples, not fractions.
  • It involves the greek letter "µ" which can sometimes be difficult to type, necessitating ugly workarounds. It is also tempting to abbreviate "micro" as "m", causing confusion with "mBTC".
  • The definition of one bitcoin being hundred million satoshis is completely arbitrary and not encoded anywhere in the protocol or blockchain. Internally, all transactions are in satoshis anyway, so it just doesn't seem right to base the system on this purely arbitrary unit.

The first point is actually the most important one: Remember when you learned about integers (1, 2, 3, ...) in school? Remember when you learned about fractions (½, ⅓, ¼, ...)?
Fractions are tought later as it's the more difficult subject. Multiples, on the other hand, are easier and more intuitive, which is an important property to make bitcoin viable for the masses.

The weakness of the current bitcoin unit system is that new units are created through division by 1000, e.g. 1/1000 BTC = 1 mBTC, which involves fractions.
So, to get this straight we have to create new units through multiplication with 1000, e.g. 1000 sat = 1 ksat, thereby removing any fractions from the system.

Strictly speaking, the resulting system would look like this:

[base unit] =    1 sat
              1000 sat =    1 ksat
                         1000 ksat =   1 Msat
                                     100 Msat = 1 BTC


But in practice, there won't be a difference between "1k sat" and "1 ksat", nor between "1M sat" and "1 Msat", i.e. the spacing is insignificant.
It doesn't require learning any greek prefixes either: Everyone already knows that "k" means thousand and "M" means million, which makes the meaning of "ksat" and "Msat" self-explanatory.

[base unit] =    1 sat
              1000 sat =    1k sat
                         1000k sat =   1M sat
                                     100M sat = 1 BTC


It is very important to stress that the intermediate units (ksat/Msat) don't need to be explained because they are so intuitive that many people use them without noticing.
So the only thing that this system requires to learn is that 100M satoshis = 1 BTC, and this learning exercise is unavoidable anyway.



This proposal is definitely not new, but it strikes me through its simplicity, so I wonder why it isn't widely employed already. Thus, my question to you is: What are the objections against this kind of unit system?


no, because: people want to buy bitcoin, not satoshis
member
Activity: 69
Merit: 10
November 03, 2014, 02:00:34 PM
#1
Previously I criticised other proposals for improving bitcoin denominations, so fairness requires that I also lay out my opinion to be criticised by others.



First of all, here's the current bitcoin unit system as used in most wallets, etc.:

[base unit] = 1     BTC
              0.001 BTC = 1     mBTC
                          0.001 mBTC = 1    µBTC
                                       0.01 µBTC = 1 sat


This system has some flaws:

  • It is a top-down system, i.e. we start with a large unit and subdivide it further and further. The subunits are thus designated as fractions of the base unit; but the human brain prefers to deal with multiples, not fractions.
  • It involves the greek letter "µ" which can sometimes be difficult to type, necessitating ugly workarounds. It is also tempting to abbreviate "micro" as "m", causing confusion with "mBTC".
  • The definition of one bitcoin being hundred million satoshis is completely arbitrary and not encoded anywhere in the protocol or blockchain. Internally, all transactions are in satoshis anyway, so it just doesn't seem right to base the system on this purely arbitrary unit.

The first point is actually the most important one: Remember when you learned about integers (1, 2, 3, ...) in school? Remember when you learned about fractions (½, ⅓, ¼, ...)?
Fractions are tought later as it's the more difficult subject. Multiples, on the other hand, are easier and more intuitive, which is an important property to make bitcoin viable for the masses.

The weakness of the current bitcoin unit system is that new units are created through division by 1000, e.g. 1/1000 BTC = 1 mBTC, which involves fractions.
So, to get this straight we have to create new units through multiplication with 1000, e.g. 1000 sat = 1 ksat, thereby removing any fractions from the system.

Strictly speaking, the resulting system would look like this:

[base unit] =    1 sat
              1000 sat =    1 ksat
                         1000 ksat =   1 Msat
                                     100 Msat = 1 BTC


But in practice, there won't be a difference between "1k sat" and "1 ksat", nor between "1M sat" and "1 Msat", i.e. the spacing is insignificant.
It doesn't require learning any greek prefixes either: Everyone already knows that "k" means thousand and "M" means million, which makes the meaning of "ksat" and "Msat" self-explanatory.

[base unit] =    1 sat
              1000 sat =    1k sat
                         1000k sat =   1M sat
                                     100M sat = 1 BTC


It is very important to stress that the intermediate units (ksat/Msat) don't need to be explained because they are so intuitive that many people use them without noticing.
So the only thing that this system requires to learn is that 100M satoshis = 1 BTC, and this learning exercise is unavoidable anyway.



This proposal is definitely not new, but it strikes me through its simplicity, so I wonder why it isn't widely employed already. Thus, my question to you is: What are the objections against this kind of unit system?
Jump to: