So "bits" is proposed as a shorcut for 100 satoshis, the nearest SI prefix.
Get your point, but the nearest one would be nanoBTC: 0.1 satoshis.
Thinking the same thing!
Topic: Please stop with mBTC, microBTC, ...! - page 6. (Read 15217 times)
Get your point, but the nearest one would be nanoBTC: 0.1 satoshis.
Thinking the same thing!
So "bits" is proposed as a shorcut for 100 satoshis, the nearest SI prefix.
Get your point, but the nearest one would be nanoBTC: 0.1 satoshis.
Quote
there are 100,000,000 satoshis in one BTC
Thats exactly how it should be done. I dont use the zeros, its only the silly exchanges which force people to look at it this way.
When can already describe 1 million sats, why is there need for other inventions like bits. It should be entirely optional and maybe thats fine but nothing further is actually required now
So "bits" is proposed as a shorcut for 100 satoshis, the nearest SI prefix.
Quote
there are 100,000,000 satoshis in one BTC
Thats exactly how it should be done. I dont use the zeros, its only the silly exchanges which force people to look at it this way.
When can already describe 1 million sats, why is there need for other inventions like bits. It should be entirely optional and maybe thats fine but nothing further is actually required now
But it's difficult to count the decimal place of Satoshi
It is interesting to me how we use ',' (or '.' in some places in the world) for large numbers but we do not do that for small numbers. For example we write "there are 100,000,000 satoshis in one BTC". The ','s make it easy to read but we write "one satoshi is 0.00000001 BTC". I wonder why we don't write "one satoshi is 0.000,000,01 BTC"? That would help but I just have never seen it done.I was just thinking the same thing lol...
Because most people don't write all the zeros in the first place, they use prefixes or scientific notation. In the world of computer programming it is common to using spacing in very large numbers. Well that isn't always the case, it isn't unusual to be able to break numbers up into many parts.
But it's difficult to count the decimal place of Satoshi
It is interesting to me how we use ',' (or '.' in some places in the world) for large numbers but we do not do that for small numbers. For example we write "there are 100,000,000 satoshis in one BTC". The ','s make it easy to read but we write "one satoshi is 0.00000001 BTC". I wonder why we don't write "one satoshi is 0.000,000,01 BTC"? That would help but I just have never seen it done.I was just thinking the same thing lol...
But it's difficult to count the decimal place of Satoshi
It is interesting to me how we use ',' (or '.' in some places in the world) for large numbers but we do not do that for small numbers. For example we write "there are 100,000,000 satoshis in one BTC". The ','s make it easy to read but we write "one satoshi is 0.00000001 BTC". I wonder why we don't write "one satoshi is 0.000,000,01 BTC"? That would help but I just have never seen it done.
But it's difficult to count the decimal place of Satoshi
I feel like metric/SI prefixes help establish the infinite divisibility possible in Bitcoin. That being said, all I've used for calculations are BTC and mBTC (since mBTC is somewhat of a convenience at current BTC/USD exchange prices, and a denomination I deal with frequently)
I understand your opinion. If you feel that way don't use bits as proposed. Use you favorite nomenclature.
yep. and my feeling is that most people won't use it. and it will then die off.
I never thought the whole "satoshis = 10-8 BTC" thing would ever catch on. I thought that it was stupid, just use 0.01 uBTC or 10 nBTC I said, that is why we have a metric system I said, but there it is - all over the place and accepted as specified fact.
We shall see.
i generally agree with the OP.... BTC is an established denomination. but metric is better than "bits"...
I understand your opinion. If you feel that way don't use bits as proposed. Use you favorite nomenclature.
yep. and my feeling is that most people won't use it. and it will then die off.
I understand your opinion. If you feel that way don't use bits as proposed. Use you favorite nomenclature.
That is pretty much what everyone will do. I see bits was listed on a bitcoin wiki too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBTC
I understand your opinion. If you feel that way don't use bits as proposed. Use you favorite nomenclature.
There is already a preexisting definition of 8 bits to one dollar. This definition predated Bitcoin, me and you. That is not a proposal that is a fact.
The proposal is to reuse the same word, a word that has already been used in the past as a unit of money, as a shorthand or shortcut for writing or saying 0.000001 BTC. Yes that is 1 microBitcoin, 100 satoshis, 1 uBTC, or 1 bit - use whatever floats your boat.
The proposal is to reuse the same word, a word that has already been used in the past as a unit of money, as a shorthand or shortcut for writing or saying 0.000001 BTC. Yes that is 1 microBitcoin, 100 satoshis, 1 uBTC, or 1 bit - use whatever floats your boat.
However, bitcoin doesn't have anything to do with the dollar. There is no reason to reuse an old term that is already been reused multiple times. In fact there is no need for another term
0.000001 BTC is 1 uBTC. That is clear, easy and actually follows already excepted standards.
There is already a preexisting definition of 8 bits to one dollar. This definition predated Bitcoin, me and you. That is not a proposal that is a fact.
The proposal is to reuse the same word, a word that has already been used in the past as a unit of money, as a shorthand or shortcut for writing or saying 0.000001 BTC. Yes that is 1 microBitcoin, 100 satoshis, 1 uBTC, or 1 bit - use whatever floats your boat.
The proposal is to reuse the same word, a word that has already been used in the past as a unit of money, as a shorthand or shortcut for writing or saying 0.000001 BTC. Yes that is 1 microBitcoin, 100 satoshis, 1 uBTC, or 1 bit - use whatever floats your boat.
Before people listen to the voices from the USA much they should look at just how insane the US system of units is.
For example:
There is a measurement called a dry pint. 16 dry pints = 1 peck. 4 pecks = 1 bushel. But 1 bushel = 9.30917749 US gallons.
Okay but a bushel is mass so lets convert it to oz. Oh 1 US dry pint = 18.618355 US fluid ounces! And these are the people complaining that mBTC is confusing? In all fairness most Americans don't have a clue what a peck is, but they are the ones crying for more units.
Make it simple, just use the units we have! Use SI prefixes and let most of the Americans learn something useful for change.
For the record I'm a US citizen, but I'm not proud of the messed system of units used in the US. Pretty absurd if you ask me.
Finally you just have to love how people plan to map "bits" to the USD. Like the USD is the only currency in the world that people care about. Wake up people, look at the calendar, it isn't 1969 anymore.
Video about US distance measurements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7x-RGfd0Yk
For example:
There is a measurement called a dry pint. 16 dry pints = 1 peck. 4 pecks = 1 bushel. But 1 bushel = 9.30917749 US gallons.
Okay but a bushel is mass so lets convert it to oz. Oh 1 US dry pint = 18.618355 US fluid ounces! And these are the people complaining that mBTC is confusing? In all fairness most Americans don't have a clue what a peck is, but they are the ones crying for more units.
Make it simple, just use the units we have! Use SI prefixes and let most of the Americans learn something useful for change.
For the record I'm a US citizen, but I'm not proud of the messed system of units used in the US. Pretty absurd if you ask me.
Finally you just have to love how people plan to map "bits" to the USD. Like the USD is the only currency in the world that people care about. Wake up people, look at the calendar, it isn't 1969 anymore.
Video about US distance measurements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7x-RGfd0Yk
Can't believe this debate is still going on 
This kind of discussions pops up every few months and there has never been any sort of resolution. I have seen a prized contest, a few votes, and it is ALWAYS split between standard SI units and "bit". I honestly don't have a problem having them both. Standard SI units for contracts and "official" use and "bit" for day to day use, like we call 1 pound (GBP) a "quid".
This kind of discussions pops up every few months and there has never been any sort of resolution. I have seen a prized contest, a few votes, and it is ALWAYS split between standard SI units and "bit". I honestly don't have a problem having them both. Standard SI units for contracts and "official" use and "bit" for day to day use, like we call 1 pound (GBP) a "quid".
And I don't think it will ever end, lol. That's how I stand behind this debate. I have no problem with either. Say bits. Say mBTC. Say ubits. Whatever you desire, I'll know what you're talking about.
It isn't a problem when everyone understands what is being talked about. Trading is even less of a concern because traders are used to different symbols. My concern is that if "Bits" becomes wide spread, it will only be a matter of time before it doesn't work anymore because of changes in BTC exchange rate or something else. Someone will come up with yet another term! The fix isn't creating new terms, the fix is learning how to work with the units we have. Bitcoin isn't American and it should be pulled in the same unit morass used for common measurements in USA.
Can't believe this debate is still going on
This kind of discussions pops up every few months and there has never been any sort of resolution. I have seen a prized contest, a few votes, and it is ALWAYS split between standard SI units and "bit". I honestly don't have a problem having them both. Standard SI units for contracts and "official" use and "bit" for day to day use, like we call 1 pound (GBP) a "quid".
This kind of discussions pops up every few months and there has never been any sort of resolution. I have seen a prized contest, a few votes, and it is ALWAYS split between standard SI units and "bit". I honestly don't have a problem having them both. Standard SI units for contracts and "official" use and "bit" for day to day use, like we call 1 pound (GBP) a "quid".
And I don't think it will ever end, lol. That's how I stand behind this debate. I have no problem with either. Say bits. Say mBTC. Say ubits. Whatever you desire, I'll know what you're talking about.
1 satoshi = smallest unit, pretty much in general use today
1 bit = 100 satoshi, eventually every day use, coffee, sandwiches, etc.
1 XBT = 1 bit, should be the official symbol on all exchanges, forex, etc.
1 BTC = 1000000 bits = kept for dealing with larger amounts, may fade
1 bit = 100 satoshi, eventually every day use, coffee, sandwiches, etc.
1 XBT = 1 bit, should be the official symbol on all exchanges, forex, etc.
1 BTC = 1000000 bits = kept for dealing with larger amounts, may fade
That is crazy. Adding more terms doesn't make it simple. Just stick and "XBT" is a totally different term again.
kBTC = 1000 BTC
BTC
mBTC = .001 BTC
uBTC = .000001 BTC
Now that is easy and simple and follows SI standards. It can also easily extended in either direction. One term and stardard prefixes.
Jump to: