Topic: [RFC] Our next denomination: UBC (Read 10282 times)
I think this is a great idea
As bitcoins increase in value, you will start to see amounts such as 0.000057 BTC in everyday use. As discussed here on the forums, eventually we will need to move the decimal place. When we do, we must create a three-letter currency code, one that does not already conflict with ISO 4217 currency codes: http://www.xe.com/iso4217.php
One proposal floated on IRC is "UBC", representing 1e-6 bitcoins. Rather than the full 1e-8, UBC would leave two decimal places to mimic familiar behavior in other currencies.
Thus, 0.12345678 BTC would become 123456.78 UBC. The current TX minimum-fee (0.01 BTC) is 10000 UBC and the proposed new minimum (0.0005 BTC) is 500 UBC.
Q: Why not "satoshis" or "nanocoins" or other alternatives?
A: The project has invested 2+ years into the marketing of the word "bitcoins", and that should not be abandoned.
Q: Should it be "uBC"?
A: No; ISO standards and currency software want ALL CAPS.
Are you aware that BTC itself is not conformant with ISO 4217 (BT is the code for Bhutan)? So why would we want that the new name to be conformant with it? One proposal floated on IRC is "UBC", representing 1e-6 bitcoins. Rather than the full 1e-8, UBC would leave two decimal places to mimic familiar behavior in other currencies.
Thus, 0.12345678 BTC would become 123456.78 UBC. The current TX minimum-fee (0.01 BTC) is 10000 UBC and the proposed new minimum (0.0005 BTC) is 500 UBC.
Q: Why not "satoshis" or "nanocoins" or other alternatives?
A: The project has invested 2+ years into the marketing of the word "bitcoins", and that should not be abandoned.
Q: Should it be "uBC"?
A: No; ISO standards and currency software want ALL CAPS.
Also, why do we need a new name? Similarly, dollars are USD but when talking about cents you don't use another currency name. In the same fashion, bitcoin is BTC and I can see no reason not to be able to use satoshis and NOT some other three letter code.
A real "UBC" has existed since March: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Universal_Bitcoin
If an actual new unit is desired, this UBC would make more sense.
But if people just want to "move" the decimal point, μBTC already exists. Since it remains decimal-specific, the obvious three-letter code would be DBC (Decimal Bitcoin).
If an actual new unit is desired, this UBC would make more sense.
But if people just want to "move" the decimal point, μBTC already exists. Since it remains decimal-specific, the obvious three-letter code would be DBC (Decimal Bitcoin).
UBC to refer to micro Bitcoins is a good idea, but I think the official currency code should remain BTC. Like USD and EUR (both are divided in cents)
I agree the µBC is a good idea. Kinda of like pennies compared to the USD only a million times smaller than the BTC. I mentioned this on another thread, but according to my calculations if BTCs get universally adopted they will eventually reach a point where one µBC is at parity with the USD. Assuming speculators don't drive it higher than that. After that point there will be a slow increase in value due to deflationary pressure of slow BTC loss.
+1 BTC ..I really don't see it as a problem. We have enough precision past the decimal. So what if we're dealing with small numbers, the "Bitcoin" theme is still just getting out for most people, no need to confuse millcoins or microcoins yet. When the value passes $100 US/1 BTC, then we may need a change.
so... in a few months, then?
let's just pretend we're in october 2011 and coins are 100usd/btc. what do you choose now?
+1 BTC ..I really don't see it as a problem. We have enough precision past the decimal. So what if we're dealing with small numbers, the "Bitcoin" theme is still just getting out for most people, no need to confuse millcoins or microcoins yet. When the value passes $100 US/1 BTC, then we may need a change.
Maybe the currency codes "ATI" or "AMD" are still available too?
+1 for keeping the existing name. Really, every person on the planet should be able to have at least one Bitcoin.
For the transition, people would call them something like small bitcoins (one millionth of the current BTC), and big bitcoins (current 1 BTC).
For the transition, people would call them something like small bitcoins (one millionth of the current BTC), and big bitcoins (current 1 BTC).
I would favor something different : when the decimal place is moved in the default implementation we just call "a bitcoin" whatever happens to be the smallest integer value after the decimal shift.
Happened in France the other way around when we switched from "old francs" to "new francs" with a "new franc" being worth exactly 100 "old" ones.
After a couple of weeks of slight confusion, everything would be back in order
Happened in France the other way around when we switched from "old francs" to "new francs" with a "new franc" being worth exactly 100 "old" ones.
After a couple of weeks of slight confusion, everything would be back in order
I vote for this as well.
This happened in many other countries not only France.
But then the currency codes change to avoid ambiguity where it matters. The new unit can (and probably will) be called a "bitcoin" but will still need a new currency code. Preferably one compatible with ISO 4217.
I vote for BTC
I would favor something different : when the decimal place is moved in the default implementation we just call "a bitcoin" whatever happens to be the smallest integer value after the decimal shift.
Happened in France the other way around when we switched from "old francs" to "new francs" with a "new franc" being worth exactly 100 "old" ones.
After a couple of weeks of slight confusion, everything would be back in order
Happened in France the other way around when we switched from "old francs" to "new francs" with a "new franc" being worth exactly 100 "old" ones.
After a couple of weeks of slight confusion, everything would be back in order
I vote for this as well.
This happened in many other countries not only France.
XBT is free.
Yuck. I parse that as "Extreme BitTorrent". Or "Extreme British Telecom". 
XBC seems taken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Unit_of_Account
It's obsolete since 1979, though. Are codes never reused?
I don't know, maybe. If bonds are denominated in it, they may still be outstanding. And I'm sure lots of programs, on seeing "XBC", will display "European Unit of Account 9" to the user, which could be a real head-scratcher if the intent was bitcoin.
Quote
XBT is free.
+1
Since bitcoin is decentralized, a strong consensus among developers of the various clients would be needed for such a change to take place.
It's not like there are 50 lead developers and 20 implementations of the client 
If only!
XBC seems taken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Unit_of_Account
It's obsolete since 1979, though. Are codes never reused?
XBT is free.
One question.
BTC = Bitcoin
UBC = ?
BTC = Bitcoin
UBC = ?
Ultimate Bitcoin Championship?
Quote
I would favor something different : when the decimal place is moved in the default implementation we just call "a bitcoin" whatever happens to be the smallest integer value after the decimal shift.
Happened in France the other way around when we switched from "old francs" to "new francs" with a "new franc" being worth exactly 100 "old" ones.
After a couple of weeks of slight confusion, everything would be back in order
Happened in France the other way around when we switched from "old francs" to "new francs" with a "new franc" being worth exactly 100 "old" ones.
After a couple of weeks of slight confusion, everything would be back in order
Yeah this is the best idea I think. No real need to make up a new name. Just change the display in the client.
Actually the GUI of the client, just need to shift all decimal places of everything Bitcoin value related, at least one digit for the next release, and say that there will ultimately be a total of 210million, of your fractions of the Bitcoin basket in existence in future.
Since bitcoin is decentralized, a strong consensus among developers of the various clients would be needed for such a change to take place.
It's not like there are 50 lead developers and 20 implementations of the client Jump to: