Bitcoin sheme
Bitcoin
LittleBits (mBit) which will become know as Lbits
Verylittlebits (microbits) which will become known as VLbits
stupid scheme I know
but kinda catchs onto what people know
bit
littlebits
verylittlebits
personally I preffer m and micro (mu)
but meh
Topic: Proposal: general move to bitcent/mBTC (Read 1712 times)
If the Bitcoin fx rate goes above $100 and stays there, the argument for thousandths becomes much stronger.
What about "Bitmil"? as mil was standard for the few currencies, like the pound in Cyprus, which had a minor unit of 1/1000..
What about "Bitmil"? as mil was standard for the few currencies, like the pound in Cyprus, which had a minor unit of 1/1000..
What if 1 Bitcent (0.01 BTC) becomes worth too much to be useful, similar to the current 1 BTC? It already only allows increments of ~40 US-Cents, so you already again need some digits after the decimal seperator (1 USD = ~2.5 Bitcent)...
mBTC are small enough currently to be able to ignore sub-mBTC amounts, µBTC will stay that way for even longer (and can have the "Nintendo points" advantage of currently being able to have payments end in 2-3 zeros, so in the near future you always own a certain number of hundreds or thousands of units).
Oh, and taking Finland prices as baseline + argument for pricing in BTC won't help a lot I fear - 20 EUR cents pay for nearly half an hour of parking here in central Europe for example and even in Finland if you had to round everything to the nearest 40 cents instead of 5 cents I guess you'd have quite an uproar (in Finnish proportions of course...
)
mBTC are small enough currently to be able to ignore sub-mBTC amounts, µBTC will stay that way for even longer (and can have the "Nintendo points" advantage of currently being able to have payments end in 2-3 zeros, so in the near future you always own a certain number of hundreds or thousands of units).
Oh, and taking Finland prices as baseline + argument for pricing in BTC won't help a lot I fear - 20 EUR cents pay for nearly half an hour of parking here in central Europe for example and even in Finland if you had to round everything to the nearest 40 cents instead of 5 cents I guess you'd have quite an uproar (in Finnish proportions of course...
) 
A "cent" doesn't require moving the decimal point of the currency, it's what we already use:
1.00 = bitcoin
0.01 = bitcent
A "centibitcoin" (and that would be technically correct) would be too close in value to the existing currency, making mistaking one for another too easy.
SI units are commonly used as primary designators, and two uses can perceived as different words:
microfarads = capacitance
centimeters = length
kilometers = length
However, there are no examples of SI units with currency though, because there have been few times in currency history where small units have bought so much. US Dollar in 1850-1900 is equivalent to Bitcoin now. If we divided bitcoins into eighths:
"Shave and a haircut, two bits!" = $0.25 in 1900
"Shave and a haircut, two bits!" = BTC0.25 in 2013 ($11)
"Bits", or pieces of eight, is a term that comes from a time in colonial America when a silver coin was too much money to be used. Fortunately we don't have to cut up a bitcoin to spend it.
For large amounts, language already has it's own "SI" units, million, billion, trillion. "The US budget deficit is $845 gigadollars" is not said.
I think we have another three decimal places of valuation to go before BTC becomes burdensome, making it difficult to visually discern decimal places on a number like .000051 bitcoins. After that, microbitcoin would be the logical unit to use, as a unit that is one million times smaller is a big enough divide that both currency designations won't be commonly used at the same time, and an error in the amount will be easily noticed - "oops, I accidentally sent you 10,000 BTC instead of 10,000μBTC" just isn't going to happen. A satoshi is a microbitcoin cent.
"Who wants to be a microbitcoin millionaire?" = 1 BTC
1.00 = bitcoin
0.01 = bitcent
A "centibitcoin" (and that would be technically correct) would be too close in value to the existing currency, making mistaking one for another too easy.
SI units are commonly used as primary designators, and two uses can perceived as different words:
microfarads = capacitance
centimeters = length
kilometers = length
However, there are no examples of SI units with currency though, because there have been few times in currency history where small units have bought so much. US Dollar in 1850-1900 is equivalent to Bitcoin now. If we divided bitcoins into eighths:
"Shave and a haircut, two bits!" = $0.25 in 1900
"Shave and a haircut, two bits!" = BTC0.25 in 2013 ($11)
"Bits", or pieces of eight, is a term that comes from a time in colonial America when a silver coin was too much money to be used. Fortunately we don't have to cut up a bitcoin to spend it.
For large amounts, language already has it's own "SI" units, million, billion, trillion. "The US budget deficit is $845 gigadollars" is not said.
I think we have another three decimal places of valuation to go before BTC becomes burdensome, making it difficult to visually discern decimal places on a number like .000051 bitcoins. After that, microbitcoin would be the logical unit to use, as a unit that is one million times smaller is a big enough divide that both currency designations won't be commonly used at the same time, and an error in the amount will be easily noticed - "oops, I accidentally sent you 10,000 BTC instead of 10,000μBTC" just isn't going to happen. A satoshi is a microbitcoin cent.
"Who wants to be a microbitcoin millionaire?" = 1 BTC
Bitcent is intuitive and would attract new users.
I like Bitcent. It is something the public would take-up faster, and provide meaningful amounts for common products... e.g. 12 bitcents for a glass of wine.
I think it wouldn't be beneficial using a familier monetary unit, as the values used at time of exchange will imply a loss of worth or value the higher the price of btc goes. I think some % of the general population would be put off having to spend $xx to buy a single 'bitcent', even though it's arbitrary, it's hardwired in us. At the moment $1 buys around 0.025 BTC, but it also buys 2.5 million Satoshis
mBTC is obscure and would drive away new users. Bitcent is intuitive and would attract new users. To some extent this is a development discussion because in order for this change to happen the standard client needs to be altered to show bitcents instead of bitcoins by default.
Note that changing the settings on our clients is not the solution. Everyone in this forum has the kind of brain that can handled decimal points. The change wouldn't be for us, it would be for them.
Once the standard client is changed everyone else would change too.
Note that changing the settings on our clients is not the solution. Everyone in this forum has the kind of brain that can handled decimal points. The change wouldn't be for us, it would be for them.
Once the standard client is changed everyone else would change too.
Have been considering changing pricing on Fennec to mBTC.
Not sure if it would confuse Bitcoin newbies though.
Not sure if it would confuse Bitcoin newbies though.
This is not really a "development" decision. Bitcoin technically supports mBTC right away, the Bitcoin-Qt wallet (which the development team is most concerned of) already allows users to show the balance as mBTC or uBTC.
It's up to service providers and users, not Bitcoin devs, to make this happen. I agree that we're getting close to such valuations that starting to get used to the idea of mBTC is smart. Simply start exchanging in mBTC instead of BTC and it's done, but it will be a slow transition and dependent on what kind of service one runs.
It's up to service providers and users, not Bitcoin devs, to make this happen. I agree that we're getting close to such valuations that starting to get used to the idea of mBTC is smart. Simply start exchanging in mBTC instead of BTC and it's done, but it will be a slow transition and dependent on what kind of service one runs.
Hi all,
How long do you consider it practical to have 100Msatoshi named as the basic unit of the currency?
I believe it would be desirable to start talking in an unit that more closely corresponds the value of fiat currencies, ie. where 1 BTC is in the tune of USD, or somewhat less. This would convey an image of a fluid, rapid-moving, easy-and-cheap-to-use Internet currency. The opposite is the monolithic gold or Berkshire Hathaway share. I believe the former suits Bitcoin better.
And this by just changing the decimal point.
We have to be aware that splits in boom times greatly prolong the boom because the asset does not seem expensive.
How long do you consider it practical to have 100Msatoshi named as the basic unit of the currency?
I believe it would be desirable to start talking in an unit that more closely corresponds the value of fiat currencies, ie. where 1 BTC is in the tune of USD, or somewhat less. This would convey an image of a fluid, rapid-moving, easy-and-cheap-to-use Internet currency. The opposite is the monolithic gold or Berkshire Hathaway share. I believe the former suits Bitcoin better.
And this by just changing the decimal point.
We have to be aware that splits in boom times greatly prolong the boom because the asset does not seem expensive.
Jump to: