Topic: RFC: SI- type of naming convention for BTC - page 2. (Read 5596 times)

The naming pattern we have now is not a problem in real life.

It is only possible for a person to imagine that the BTC is indivisible if they've never even heard about bitcoins.  Every single thing that I've seen that displays bitcoins does so with at least a couple digits after the decimal, starting with the stock client, the faucet, Mt Gox, the block explorer, every single mining pool website, etc, etc.

Where are you finding people that both 1) have heard of bitcoins, and 2) think they are atomic and indivisible?

I am sorry if that wasnt clear, i think you are misinterpreting my posting as a suggestion to change anything in the code or protocol. It is not, it is a suggestion to change the naming pattern to one that is NOT a problem in real life. I consider the current naming system unacceptable for widespread use, hence the suggestion.

The only problem is on the forums, not in real life.

Currently, the BTC unit is divisible to FAR below the point that anyone cares.  And if we start getting transactions down to that point, it is trivial to extend the protocol.  In fact, we will probably extend it for technical reasons a century or two before any real life transactions need the extra digits.  Yes, I said centuries, and no, I wasn't kidding.

Why not worry about something that might become a problem in your lifetime rather than making up this crap?

It's a key aspect of anything "universally accepted" to be percieved easy to grasp and simple. The concept of bitcoin in many aspects is difficult to grasp for even more engaged consumers, do you want to overburden them with those "TL;DR" charts?
Giving people a simple terminology that uses terms they have come to learn in the past decade through personal computers seems to be the most consumer friendly approach.

If there has ever been an argument for changing a naming system from the current situation to a system that is simplified, it would be your two charts. You can win coders hearts with these, the average consumer opens these charts and will just close it out of utter confusion and "fear of complexity".

Like!

1 BTC = 0,001 SAT
1 SAT = 1000 BTC

Easy

I agree it's too late to change BTC or probably any of the other units. But if the whole unit system were to be reorganized, something like this would be much more sensible.

While it would have been nice if Satoshi had anticipated the concern about public understanding of divisibility when he started Bitcoin, I think its way too late
to change what "a Bitcoin (BTC)" represents.  It will be too confusing, but I do think we need to have solid names for 1/1000 of a bitcoin and 1/1,000,000 of a Bitcoin and less.

An interesting idea. We have to think about that.

so the left chart is wrong yes? i had assumed it was a 3 step system. i will make a change to reflect that later today. thanks for the feedback

the issue is not the same, its not about naming 0,001 btc but changing the naming and numeration system towards SI and shifting the bitcoin unit down

Please see the thread at http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8282.0

For an extensive discussion of this issue.

You have an extra zero in there. A bitcoin is 100 million "satoshis", not 1 billion.

edit: hm, it's working now, nvm

Hey guys,

right now the reporting about Bitcoin is taking off. A recurring mistake i see in each and every posting regarding Bitcoin is the percieved limit of payment units, giving people a sense that the BTC is the smallest unit around and only 7m exist right now. Bitcoin is hard to grasp as it is, so understanding that there are one million pieces to a bitcoin seems to be too far fetched to tech journalists and the average joe user.
I see the percieved value of bitcoins as key issue to more widespread acceptance, after all most people would see themselves limited to having 0,00135 something if accepted globally, giving people a permanent feeling of not having anything.
To overcome this "perception" issue and to introduce a naming pattern for bitcoin i suggest the following, without changing ANY values, just the naming and display pattern:

a) re-brand the current type of unit used within the system from BTC to MBTC

b) use the term Bitcoin for what is currently 1 millionth of a Bitcoin

optionally c) leave the 0,x to be the subdivision of a bitcoin

Here is a quick mock-up on how such change could appear, with or without option c:




In the end, it all boils down to giving people a simple terminology that uses terms they have come to learn in the past decade through personal computers seems to be the most consumer friendly approach.

edit: for reference, here is the link to the current unit charts and some other suggestions

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Universal_Bitcoin