Author

Topic: Proposal for mass adoption: the introduction of a new unit of account (Read 349 times)

newbie
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
When bitcoin was first launched, the client only showed two decimal places, not 8. Many users at the time did not know it was further subdivisible.

Here's another post from satoshi which might interest you: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.267

Thank you so much for your research! I find it really respectable that you went digging and came across a statement by Satoshi!

Eventually at most only 21 million coins for 6.8 billion people in the world if it really gets huge.

But don't worry, there are another 6 decimal places that aren't shown, for a total of 8 decimal places internally.  It shows 1.00 but internally it's 1.00000000.  If there's massive deflation in the future, the software could show more decimal places.

If it gets tiresome working with small numbers, we could change where the display shows the decimal point.  Same amount of money, just different convention for where the ","'s and "."'s go.  e.g. moving the decimal place 3 places would mean if you had 1.00000 before, now it shows it as 1,000.00.

So it was Satoshi's original intention to use a currency with 2 decimal digits (like all other currencies).

But above all, he explains very well that the larger the money supply, the greater the need to shift the main unit by 3 digits.
Finally, 13 years after his post, the main unit would have to be shifted by 6 digits.

In fact, it doesn't matter how this unit will be called (bit, nakamoto or whatever), what's important is to respect the original idea and adapt to reality so that using Bitcoin is as simple as possible for the general public.

And yes, of course, technicians like you, the original enthusiasts, would continue to speak with satoshis (that's what I suggested in my diagram, the satoshi is for technical purposes: https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/08/17/MAJM1.jpeg).
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18711
So if I understand correctly, 10^8 was chosen for technical considerations, not for user experience. Very interesting!
When bitcoin was first launched, the client only showed two decimal places, not 8. Many users at the time did not know it was further subdivisible.

Here's another post from Satoshi which might interest you: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.267

Clearly the idea of moving the decimal point never caught on, and I can't see it ever getting enough support to happen now. Working in sats works just fine.
newbie
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
See this post from Ray Dillinger: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9170781
Thank you so much for this link!
So if I understand correctly, 10^8 was chosen for technical considerations, not for user experience. Very interesting!

I remember this discussion, actually.  

Finney, Satoshi, and I discussed how divisible a Bitcoin ought to be.  Satoshi had already more or less decided on a 50-coin per block payout with halving every so often to add up to a 21M coin supply.  Finney made the point that people should never need any currency division smaller than a US penny, and then somebody (I forget who) consulted some oracle somewhere like maybe Wikipedia and figured out what the entire world's M1 money supply at that time was.  

We debated for a while about which measure of money Bitcoin most closely approximated; but M2, M3, and so on are all for debt-based currencies, so I agreed with Finney that M1 was probably the best measure.  

21Million, times 10^8 subdivisions, meant that even if the whole word's money supply were replaced by the 21 million bitcoins the smallest unit (we weren't calling them Satoshis yet)  would still be worth a bit less than a penny, so no matter what happened -- even if the entire economy of planet earth were measured in Bitcoin -- it would never inconvenience people by being too large a unit for convenience.

Then

Now that I think of it, we did talk about the floating point format in that discussion.  8-decimal divisibility was the maximum Satoshi would consider, for that reason (although he was a fanatic about doing everything with unsigned integers).   Hal's point about the smallest division being less than a penny, and that being possible even if the whole world's money supply were denominated in Bitcoin, meant no extraordinary measures were necessary.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18711
Also, I haven't found any answers, but does anyone know why Satoshi Nakamoto decided 1 btc = 10^8 sat? Why 8?
See this post from Ray Dillinger: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9170781

The difference between the highest valued (GBP) and lowest valued (INR) fiat currencies on your chart is over 100x, with 1 GBP = 105 INR. Given that you are implying a difference of over 100x is fine for fiat currencies, why isn't it fine to just use sats for bitcoin?

I mean, the paisa barely even exists in India anymore, with the 50 paise coin not minted in over 20 years and every smaller coin completely demonetized. The price of everything in India is denoted solely in rupees, where something like a laptop might cost between ₹30,000 and ₹200,000. What's wrong with just doing the same for sats?
newbie
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
Thank you very much for your comments.
I realize that a small diagram would have been welcome from the start, my apologies.

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/08/17/MAJM1.jpeg

When I talk about mass adoption, I also mean business accounting, for small shops and so on.
Keeping dual accounts (in MXN and USD, for example) is not easy enough. If, on top of that, you add a currency whose subdivisions have nothing in common with existing currencies, nobody's going to understand it. And it will piss everyone off to deal with satoshis.

Also, I haven't found any answers, but does anyone know why Satoshi Nakamoto decided 1 btc = 10^8 sat? Why 8?

hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 511
OP, your proposal isn't relevant as the unit can be confusing to so many people and it wouldn't help in anyway to increase the adoption if bitcoin. There is mBTC and sats which is preferable because that is what we use for long. So coming up with a new unit and you think that people will buy your idea,it is impossible and not called for. Don't waste more of your time thinking that your idea will work out.
legendary
Activity: 966
Merit: 1042
#SWGT CERTIK Audited
Hmm, Interesting proposal but my frequent questions are as I'm a student, Why need it? is it necessary while we already have a perfect one? (Sats). What king of change it can bring? Is the community really want the new unit of account? As per my knowledge, I know the answer to each and everyone but as it can be based on my learning I can be wrong somewhere so what is Op's word is on it really matters to me.

Op wants us to comment and I'm sure after reading a perspective with his own understanding he created this topic now really I want to know after learning from the replies and other perspectives on it where Op really stand.
legendary
Activity: 3122
Merit: 1102
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
With the already high technical hurdles involved in normal people being able to use and understand Bitcoin, I’m not so sure it’s a great idea to be introducing more things unnecessarily. You have to remember that there are people out there who accidentally bought BCH thinking it was Bitcoin. More units of account seems like a bad idea for adoption.

i guess, i will stick to satoshis here. very few are using bits anyway. and to think that people are already confused when they encounter the 'bits' unit. and people will have more confusion if they will hear another one which is nakamotos. the intention may be great, but people need simplicity here. i don't think it will help newcomers to appreciate this top alt having varying units and they need to convert it into the original one just to understand its value.
donator
Activity: 4760
Merit: 4323
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
With the already high technical hurdles involved in normal people being able to use and understand Bitcoin, I’m not so sure it’s a great idea to be introducing more things unnecessarily. You have to remember that there are people out there who accidentally bought BCH thinking it was Bitcoin. More units of account seems like a bad idea for adoption.
legendary
Activity: 2954
Merit: 1153
If we are talking about adoption, we should go along with the unit that had been long known by the masses.  Creating a new name will just make it confusing to people.  Besides I believe most of people who know Bitcoin is conviniently using the existing unit like BTC, mBTC, and sats.  I also don't think to promote another unit to replace satoshi. It is easier to remember 15 sats than 0.15 Naks, IMO
newbie
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
How can renaming Bitcoin to something else...
This is just like telling the United States to change their currency from dollar to a fresh new thing entirely...

Did you actually read the article? I guess not...
If the paper isn't pedagogical enough, I'm sorry. But what you're saying has nothing to do with the underlying thought...
sr. member
Activity: 728
Merit: 421
How can renaming Bitcoin to something else to serve as a unit solve the problem of adoption, it's like starting over again, because many people who hasn't yet adopted Bitcoin won't deny that they have heard about the name Bitcoin or read about it and now you would need to explain further about the unit addition and then you have loose their trust before it even begun.

If this was the solution then countries would have changed their currency name to something else to tackle their economical issues, but no it's very fruitless.

I was wondering if OP really had a deep thought of this proposals he or she is putting forward because I see it as unnecessary and a waste of time to be precise. This is just like telling the United States to change their currency from dollar to a fresh new thing entirely which i believe would not go down well with them. Just a laughable idea. little wonder OP refused to use his or her main account for this because of the fear of being greeted with unexpected reactions from members.
hero member
Activity: 1666
Merit: 709
Playbet.io - Crypto Casino and Sportsbook
How can renaming Bitcoin to something else to serve as a unit solve the problem of adoption, it's like starting over again, because many people who hasn't yet adopted Bitcoin won't deny that they have heard about the name Bitcoin or read about it and now you would need to explain further about the unit addition and then you have loose their trust before it even begun.

If this was the solution then countries would have changed their currency name to something else to tackle their economical issues, but no it's very fruitless.
newbie
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
I can't access the document, is it still online?

Sorry, there was an error on the server. Here is the new address (2 sentences have changed since the previous version): https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/D4E1FAQHNFspwYr2bHQ/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1692210247829?e=1692835200&v=beta&t=jmq9iAAs6j94GCW0fgq5kcn3Wug2VANV1X17hv9uDMg
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 6249
Decentralization Maximalist
I can't access the document, is it still online?

Personally, I think the unit "Bitcent" is underrated. It's true that it is equivalent to a quite high value of currently around $300 USD. But it is still a number not too far from many everyday purchases (rent, clothing, weekly buys in the grocery, up to small cars all are things between 0.1 and 100 Bitcents). And the term "cent" is established in many currencies, people will immediately know what's meant (1/100 of the main unit). It could be used this way up to the 100-200K, maybe also 300-500K (then the smaller items would be priced 0.01 to 0.1, but this is still a manageable number) price range for BTC/USD. And for everything below we can use satoshis.

Edit: @Christophe_dcy: Got it, thanks for the link correction!

legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18711
In fact, it doesn't matter how we call the unit that defines 100 satoshis. My point is that it's this basic unit that should be used.
Then go out and use it! If enough people agree to use bits, then that's what will be used. As it stands, almost no one uses bits. I much prefer using either BTC or sats, and not complicating things with additional in between units. It's fine to use sats up to 100,000 sats, and then use BTC from 0.001 BTC.

Talking in satoshis is the equivalent of talking in cents: big numbers for nothing.
So is bits. 1 bit is 3 cents. If you want an "everyday" unit, then the logical choice is mBTC, which is ~$30.
newbie
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
Isn't it technically "Bite" rather than "Bit"?
you're right, it's the word "bite", not "bit", but the 2 are pronounced the same  Smiley

We already have BTC and sats which most people use.
don't forget that I'm talking about the masses, not insiders.  Roll Eyes


In fact, it doesn't matter how we call the unit that defines 100 satoshis. My point is that it's this basic unit that should be used.

Talking in bitcoin is the equivalent of talking in millions of dollars: it's of little interest, unless you're talking about very big amounts.
Talking in satoshis is the equivalent of talking in cents: big numbers for nothing.

An intermediate unit is more interesting to use in everyday life.
If you're going to use an intermediate unit, you might as well use the one for which 1 Unit = 100 sat, and 1 million Unit = 1 btc.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 663
I think mass adoption isn't about new small unit of Bitcoin, but it's about whether the Average Joe is interested in Bitcoin or not because most of people don't care about decentralization. Even there's a small unit, it doesn't make the Bitcoin's fee will decreased, so after all you're need to pay same fee that's expensive if you send small amount of Bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 18711


We already have BTC and sats which most people use. The term you are proposing already exists as bits or μBTC. We also have mBTC and msats. And a bunch of other units like the finney which already no one uses: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units#Table_of_all_units

A new unit is unnecessary. A new name for a unit which already has two names is even more unnecessary. It's a NACK from me I'm afraid.
legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 3191
Leave no FUD unchallenged
I'd just like to make one important point. In French, bit means cock. Which means that the French-speaking world will never be able to use this word to talk about a currency.

Isn't it technically "Bite" rather than "Bit"?

But either way, they already are if they're talking about Bitcoin.  Does translating roughly to "Cock Corner" or "Cock Place" deter people from using it?

I recall others in past topics have suggested that microbit could be shortened to "mics", but I don't think that sounds particularly catchy either.  It's really difficult to find something everyone is going to like.

legendary
Activity: 4466
Merit: 3391
As units of 100 satoshis are not used anywhere, I don't think it will catch on. But if it does, feel free to take credit.
hero member
Activity: 1456
Merit: 940
🇺🇦 Glory to Ukraine!
Bitcoin is a universal system, we need to find another word for 100 sat  Smiley

What's wrong with µBTC or microBTC? It's a part of the universal SI system.
Also, it's not accurate to say that in the SI system everything is just a multiple of 1,000, since we also have deka and hecto, as well as deci and centi. So, we can refer to 100 satoshis as 1 hectosat.
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1139
yes, I'm not exactly a newbie :-)

If there's already a debate between sat and bit, it's obvious, according to this paper, that we should go for bit. Talking in sat is strictly pointless in view of the arguments deployed in the article.

Maybe Nakamoto isn't a good idea, and we need to find another one. But the term "bit" doesn't stand out enough from "bitcoin". We need to find something different, and above all, use it.
Some of the ideas that backs bitcoin is the consensus about the ideology it portrays and I feel the day we start seeing changes such as the proposed, that’ll be the day you introduce doubt into the system on decentralization as people largely aren’t going to be okay with this and the system is just good as it is. There isn’t any need for a book of account on it.

Bitcoin seeks to be considered on its own and not having its value to be defined by fiat.

Quote
The current and future exchange rates with the main FIAT currencies would then be of the same order of magnitude: with $1 = 34 Nk at present, and why not, with time, a move towards an exchange rate close to parity: $1 ≈ 1 Nk.
While this proposal might seem rational at the time of typing, you could as well recall that bitcoin is highly volatile and the values at which the conversion rate would be equated will continue to have some real sudden changes. That’s not the sort of thing we hope to see. The bitcoin and Satoshi or mBtc as we’ve got is okay for any conversion rate.
newbie
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
Nakamoto sounds decent because we have Satoshis, but the shortcut "naks" sounds awful. But I don't like "bits" either as "bits" is already a common word that could mean either something like "smaller bits" or  "bits" as in with relation to memory.

you're right, the word bit is already used in electronics or for memory.

I'd just like to make one important point. In French, bit means cock. Which means that the French-speaking world will never be able to use this word to talk about a currency.

With the development of Africa, some studies show that by 2050, French will be more widely spoken than English in the world.

Bitcoin is a universal system, we need to find another word for 100 sat  Smiley
mk4
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 3873
Paldo.io 🤖
It's not really a new one, though.  They just found a rather long-winded way to propose renaming "bits" to "nakamotos".  Sounds worse to me.  Imagine some crappy infomercial and they say:

"Only 39 naks and 99 sats, plus shipping and handling".

"Naks" just sound weird.  "Bits" is more recognisable and memorable.

Well yea, didn't notice that lol.

Nakamoto sounds decent because we have Satoshis, but the shortcut "naks" sounds awful. But I don't like "bits" either as "bits" is already a common word that could mean either something like "smaller bits" or  "bits" as in with relation to memory.

Eitherway, I'm not a fan of using either. Sats all the way.
newbie
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
I noticed it is a newbie account making this proposals and I think the face behind this proposals is not a newbie as we think it to be because a newbie can barely come up with such proposals at such early stage for a change or inclusions but I am still curious about it.

OP your proposal is quite alright but I think it would require much deliberation from the community and to be frank reaching a resolve would definitely take time as I see this as it looks unrealistic and unnecessary.

yes, I'm not exactly a newbie :-)

If there's already a debate between sat and bit, it's obvious, according to this paper, that we should go for bit. Talking in sat is strictly pointless in view of the arguments deployed in the article.

Maybe Nakamoto isn't a good idea, and we need to find another one. But the term "bit" doesn't stand out enough from "bitcoin". We need to find something different, and above all, use it.
sr. member
Activity: 728
Merit: 421
I noticed it is a newbie account making this proposals and I think the face behind this proposals is not a newbie as we think it to be because a newbie can barely come up with such proposals at such early stage for a change or inclusions but I am still curious about it.

OP your proposal is quite alright but I think it would require much deliberation from the community and to be frank reaching a resolve would definitely take time as I see this as it looks unrealistic and unnecessary.
legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 3191
Leave no FUD unchallenged
Not necessarily against a new unit of account, but this is unnecessary. The Bitcoin community can't even decide upon what unit of account should be used (it's sats vs bits), and we're going to introduce a new one?

It's not really a new one, though.  They just found a rather long-winded way to propose renaming "bits" to "nakamotos".  Sounds worse to me.  Imagine some crappy infomercial and they say:

"Only 39 naks and 99 sats, plus shipping and handling".

"Naks" just sound weird.  "Bits" is more recognisable and memorable.
mk4
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 3873
Paldo.io 🤖
Not necessarily against a new unit of account, but this is unnecessary. The Bitcoin community can't even decide upon what unit of account should be used (it's sats vs bits), and we're going to introduce a new one?
Jump to: