Just like stocks and treasuries, etc. Nobody sells them to buy a soda.
My wife would if she had the password to my Sharebuilder account.
Topic: mBTC: At what point should the community use this as the default unit? - page 3. (Read 4731 times)
March 19, 2013, 02:18:29 PM
My wife would if she had the password to my Sharebuilder account.
March 19, 2013, 02:14:30 PM
March 19, 2013, 02:08:44 PM
As BTC goes up in price, BTC holders will buy bigger things with Bitcoins
BTC will be good for houses, cars, other investments, vacations, jewelry, etc.
We can buy sodas with fiat.
Just like stocks and treasuries, etc. Nobody sells them to buy a soda.
March 19, 2013, 01:11:46 PM
.001 is still the recommended fee to attach to a transaction 
March 19, 2013, 01:08:59 PM
Dragon's Tale got this right back in 2011
0.001btc = 1btm or bitmill
all this scientific notation mbtc just makes us look like the nerds we are
0.001btc = 1btm or bitmill
all this scientific notation mbtc just makes us look like the nerds we are
March 19, 2013, 12:16:22 PM
What is so difficult about writing 0.0000000001 BTC?
March 19, 2013, 12:10:59 PM
I have switched to using "internets."
Because reddit.
Because reddit.
March 19, 2013, 12:09:33 PM
I get your point about making it user friendly - although to me it makes little difference whether prices are displayed in BTC or mBTC. Consistency could be an issue here though. It certainly becomes less user friendly if prices are displayed in BTC in one place but mBTC elsewhere. Maybe best to stick to BTC and learn to deal with leading 0s?
Or switch to mBTC and have them become familiar with SI units from the get-go? Surely, people wil ask what mBTC stands for or why the m is small, at which point a discussion along the lines of "it's like megs and gigs".
mBTC is only the start. If Bitcoin gains wide adoption, there's no reason to think that uBTC won't eventually become the norm.
March 19, 2013, 11:37:06 AM
I like the term Bitcents more than mBTC
So the soda is 1 Bitcent
That's confusing since Bitcent implies 0.01 BTC and mBTC is 0.001 BTC.
March 19, 2013, 11:34:20 AM
I like the term Bitcents more than mBTC
So the soda is 1 Bitcent
March 19, 2013, 11:26:58 AM
I get your point about making it user friendly - although to me it makes little difference whether prices are displayed in BTC or mBTC. Consistency could be an issue here though. It certainly becomes less user friendly if prices are displayed in BTC in one place but mBTC elsewhere. Maybe best to stick to BTC and learn to deal with leading 0s?
March 19, 2013, 11:15:44 AM
FWIW, I recently switched my client to display mBTC. So that's one data point.
March 19, 2013, 11:09:22 AM
I just meant $126 seemed a rather specific value. If you'd said that at $125 per BTC it will cost 0.01 BTC that would have seemed more logical. I know it doesn't make a difference, I just tend to expect people to choose round numbers when taking an arbitrary figure as an example.
I see. Yeah, I chose $126 versus $125 to help illustrate the eventual problem if BTC/USD prices increase. The numbers themselves are obviously irrelevant, I just wanted a concrete example most people can relate to.
March 19, 2013, 11:07:23 AM
If/when BTC hits $126 USD, the price will be 0.00992.
Quite specific...
How so? If I had to guess, at present, most users on these forums expect 1 BTC to surge past $100 by next year at the absolute latest. To see it go beyond--driving the relative fiat prices to smaller and smaller amounts--isn't much of a stretch.
I just meant $126 seemed a rather specific value. If you'd said that at $125 per BTC it will cost 0.01 BTC that would have seemed more logical. I know it doesn't make a difference, I just tend to expect people to choose round numbers when taking an arbitrary figure as an example.
March 19, 2013, 11:03:54 AM
If/when BTC hits $126 USD, the price will be 0.00992.
Quite specific...
How so? If I had to guess, at present, most users on these forums expect 1 BTC to surge past $100 by next year at the absolute latest. To see it go beyond--driving the relative fiat prices to smaller and smaller amounts--isn't much of a stretch.
Edit: To me, it's a question of user-friendliness to ease uptake.
March 19, 2013, 11:03:05 AM
For example, a soda machine sells drinks for $1.25 USD. Currently, this is approximately 0.021 BTC. If/when BTC hits $126 USD, the price will be 0.00992. 5 decimal places just to represent the cost of a soda. Or 9.92mBTC, which is arguably much more user-friendly.
It's up to the soda machine owner to make this decision. It's literally not our business.
March 19, 2013, 11:00:14 AM
If/when BTC hits $126 USD, the price will be 0.00992.
Quite specific...
March 19, 2013, 10:57:24 AM
Let's move the decimal 8 places right now. I want to have more BTC.
March 19, 2013, 10:52:11 AM
Given the current trajectory of Bitcoin prices (~$59, at time of writing), it's foreseeable that trying to exchange small goods/services will result in price quotes prefixed by several zeros. For example, a soda machine sells drinks for $1.25 USD. Currently, this is approximately 0.021 BTC. If/when BTC hits $126 USD, the price will be 0.00992. 5 decimal places just to represent the cost of a soda. Or 9.92mBTC, which is arguably much more user-friendly. The problem only worsens as BTC price goes up.
Would it be better for the community to start using mBTC at the default unit sooner rather than later? If not, when do you expect the tipping point will be?
Would it be better for the community to start using mBTC at the default unit sooner rather than later? If not, when do you expect the tipping point will be?
Jump to: