Topic: Solution: How to shift the decimal - page 3. (Read 17619 times)
Use µBTC instead of uBTC. Even Windows supports Unicode for a decade now.
It'll be reduced to 0.0005 (Or 0.005, I can't remember 
)
)I bet if it had been written in mBTC you would remember: 0.5 mBTC (or 5 mBTC?
)0.0005 and 0.005 just look too similar somehow. I think we're just not used to dealing with such tiny numbers.
You can still mention nanoBTC. You just can't deal with them in groups smaller than 10 nBTC yet.
Good point. Some bitbanks will hold them to that extra precision and allow you to transfer that amount internally. You just won't be able to cash it out.
I'm personally not keen on 'Satoshi' as an 'official' unit, but now thats its entered the bitcoin vernacular its probably here to stay.
- since nano is not possible, calling them satoshi's (sBTC?) - not my idea, but thats the most commonly used term I see used so far
Could you explain why nano is not possible?
nano is 10x^-9 Bitcoins only got to 10^-8
You can still mention nanoBTC. You just can't deal with them in groups smaller than 10 nBTC yet.
Sounds like a really good plan to me. I tried to tip you - just 0.01 BTC, which is ... hey ... 10000 uBTC ... but: My client (0.3.21 on Mac) keeps telling me:
No, I don't want to pay a 0.01 fee just to send 0.01 to someone.
Any ideas what's going on here?
UPDATE YOUR CLIENT!Quote
This transaction is over the size limit. You can still send it for a fee of 0.01, which goes to the nodes that process your transaction and helps to support the network. Do you want to pay the fee?
No, I don't want to pay a 0.01 fee just to send 0.01 to someone.
Any ideas what's going on here?
It'll be reduced to 0.0005 (Or 0.005, I can't remember
) 
Well, in that case, calling it a satoshi doesn't make of lot of sense either since it's *impossible*. Or is he suggesting that 10^-8 be called satoshi-?
A satoshi IS 10^-8 BTCAnd, even though bitcoin protocol itself doesn't support further divisions they are still 'possible'. I have seen some USD bank accounts maintained to fractions of a penny.
Agreed - since nano is not possible, calling them satoshi's (sBTC?) - not my idea, but thats the most commonly used term I see used so far
Could you explain why nano is not possible?
nano is 10x^-9 Bitcoins only got to 10^-8
Well, in that case, calling it a satoshi doesn't make of lot of sense either since it's *impossible*. Or is he suggesting that 10^-8 be called satoshi-?
And, even though bitcoin protocol itself doesn't support further divisions they are still 'possible'. I have seen some USD bank accounts maintained to fractions of a penny.
I don't understand the argument that people don't want to pay 0.00035 for something.
Retailers go out of their way to make prices appear as low as they can by appealing to psychological tricks.
http://dealnews.com/features/Psychology-of-Shopping-Why-29.99-Looks-Better-Than-30/429590.html
Given the choice between paying $1 and 0.058 BTC the price with leading 0 is more attractive to a consumer,
Leaving things the way they are will help bitcoin spread not hinder it.
Retailers go out of their way to make prices appear as low as they can by appealing to psychological tricks.
http://dealnews.com/features/Psychology-of-Shopping-Why-29.99-Looks-Better-Than-30/429590.html
Given the choice between paying $1 and 0.058 BTC the price with leading 0 is more attractive to a consumer,
Leaving things the way they are will help bitcoin spread not hinder it.
+1
- since nano is not possible, calling them satoshi's (sBTC?) - not my idea, but thats the most commonly used term I see used so far
Could you explain why nano is not possible?
nano is 10x^-9 Bitcoins only got to 10^-8
I don't understand the argument that people don't want to pay 0.00035 for something.
Retailers go out of their way to make prices appear as low as they can by appealing to psychological tricks.
http://dealnews.com/features/Psychology-of-Shopping-Why-29.99-Looks-Better-Than-30/429590.html
Given the choice between paying $1 and 0.058 BTC the price with leading 0 is more attractive to a consumer,
Leaving things the way they are will help bitcoin spread not hinder it.
Retailers go out of their way to make prices appear as low as they can by appealing to psychological tricks.
http://dealnews.com/features/Psychology-of-Shopping-Why-29.99-Looks-Better-Than-30/429590.html
Given the choice between paying $1 and 0.058 BTC the price with leading 0 is more attractive to a consumer,
Leaving things the way they are will help bitcoin spread not hinder it.
- since nano is not possible, calling them satoshi's (sBTC?) - not my idea, but thats the most commonly used term I see used so far
Could you explain why nano is not possible?
Is this the concensus so far?
From what I read through the few threads that have brough up this issue, the 'general' agreement seems to me:
UNITS
- 1 bitcoin = 1BTC
- BTC = BTC forever
- Introducing additional units of measure using SI (International System of Units, aka 'metric')
- generally, by convention, skipping centi (but the option is there)
- focussing on educating the community about milli (mBTC) and micro (uBTC or μBTC)
- since nano is not possible, calling them satoshi's (sBTC?) - not my idea, but thats the most commonly used term I see used so far
Unless someone comes up with a compelling alternative, this is where I see the community going
SYMBOL
- Hijacking the Thai Baht (฿) symbol for currency
Overloading the symbol shouldnt be a problem, since many currency symbols are already overloaded. take $ for example. Did I just mean, USD, AUD, NZD, HKD, etc? When in doubt, the symbol will allways be followed by the units for clarity,
e.g. ฿1.003BTC
since BTC is the base unit,
฿1.003BTC == ฿1.003 == 1.003BTC
Note a unique symbol isn't even essential, and not all currencies have one
From what I read through the few threads that have brough up this issue, the 'general' agreement seems to me:
UNITS
- 1 bitcoin = 1BTC
- BTC = BTC forever
- Introducing additional units of measure using SI (International System of Units, aka 'metric')
- generally, by convention, skipping centi (but the option is there)
- focussing on educating the community about milli (mBTC) and micro (uBTC or μBTC)
- since nano is not possible, calling them satoshi's (sBTC?) - not my idea, but thats the most commonly used term I see used so far
Unless someone comes up with a compelling alternative, this is where I see the community going
SYMBOL
- Hijacking the Thai Baht (฿) symbol for currency
Overloading the symbol shouldnt be a problem, since many currency symbols are already overloaded. take $ for example. Did I just mean, USD, AUD, NZD, HKD, etc? When in doubt, the symbol will allways be followed by the units for clarity,
e.g. ฿1.003BTC
since BTC is the base unit,
฿1.003BTC == ฿1.003 == 1.003BTC
Note a unique symbol isn't even essential, and not all currencies have one
Study stock splits.
I'm really surprised that the community has such little background in equities, revaluation of currency or commodity.
There should have been an economist at the core of this development team.
BTC is already trying to pull a quantitative easing 1. But you have no board, theoretical basis or a bernank to oversee the operation.
so goes anarcho capitalism.
There should be an incremental splitting, first .000, then .0000, then .0000 up to some static limit, say .000000. If there is no absolute limit the BTC will go Zimbabwe and be defunct. The splits should be well notified in advance, say 2-3 months notice, then on a certain day at a certain time all BTC go to .000. Then in the next X time frame they go to .0000 using the same process. so forth and so on.
I'm really surprised that the community has such little background in equities, revaluation of currency or commodity.
There should have been an economist at the core of this development team.
BTC is already trying to pull a quantitative easing 1. But you have no board, theoretical basis or a bernank to oversee the operation.
so goes anarcho capitalism.
There should be an incremental splitting, first .000, then .0000, then .0000 up to some static limit, say .000000. If there is no absolute limit the BTC will go Zimbabwe and be defunct. The splits should be well notified in advance, say 2-3 months notice, then on a certain day at a certain time all BTC go to .000. Then in the next X time frame they go to .0000 using the same process. so forth and so on.
What are you talking about? No one is expanding anything. Simply moving the decimal. The current 1 Bitcoin will still be 1 Bitcoin and there won't be any more of them created by moving the decimal.
Have you ever sliced up a pie? Did you end up with more pie after cutting it? No.
But what he is saying is that 21 million total bitcoin is not large enough. We need to periodically adjust the amount higher. Not by issuing new bitcoins but by simply splitting the current supply and adjusting the bitcoin block generation reward. Right now I think an ideal split would be 1 for 20. Basically for every bitcoin or partial bitcoin you have it is multiplied by 20. So if you had 1 bitcoin it would go to 20. If you mined a block then the reward would be 1000 btc, not 50 and the total supply would eventually go to 420 million.
The biggest problem is the external problems that can arise. Its easy to make the adjustments in the code but you would have to stop trading and tell everyone about the adjustment. Otherwise idiots are going to be still buying/selling btc at 20$/each even though they would be worth around 1$/each after the split.
Study stock splits.
I'm really surprised that the community has such little background in equities, revaluation of currency or commodity.
There should have been an economist at the core of this development team.
BTC is already trying to pull a quantitative easing 1. But you have no board, theoretical basis or a bernank to oversee the operation.
so goes anarcho capitalism.
There should be an incremental splitting, first .000, then .0000, then .0000 up to some static limit, say .000000. If there is no absolute limit the BTC will go Zimbabwe and be defunct. The splits should be well notified in advance, say 2-3 months notice, then on a certain day at a certain time all BTC go to .000. Then in the next X time frame they go to .0000 using the same process. so forth and so on.
I'm really surprised that the community has such little background in equities, revaluation of currency or commodity.
There should have been an economist at the core of this development team.
BTC is already trying to pull a quantitative easing 1. But you have no board, theoretical basis or a bernank to oversee the operation.
so goes anarcho capitalism.
There should be an incremental splitting, first .000, then .0000, then .0000 up to some static limit, say .000000. If there is no absolute limit the BTC will go Zimbabwe and be defunct. The splits should be well notified in advance, say 2-3 months notice, then on a certain day at a certain time all BTC go to .000. Then in the next X time frame they go to .0000 using the same process. so forth and so on.
What are you talking about? No one is expanding anything. Simply moving the decimal. The current 1 Bitcoin will still be 1 Bitcoin and there won't be any more of them created by moving the decimal.
Have you ever sliced up a pie? Did you end up with more pie after cutting it? No.
But what he is saying is that 21 million total bitcoin is not large enough. We need to periodically adjust the amount higher. Not by issuing new bitcoins but by simply splitting the current supply and adjusting the bitcoin block generation reward. Right now I think an ideal split would be 1 for 20. Basically for every bitcoin or partial bitcoin you have it is multiplied by 20. So if you had 1 bitcoin it would go to 20. If you mined a block then the reward would be 1000 btc, not 50 and the total supply would eventually go to 420 million.
The biggest problem is the external problems that can arise. Its easy to make the adjustments in the code but you would have to stop trading and tell everyone about the adjustment. Otherwise idiots are going to be still buying/selling btc at 20$/each even though they would be worth around 1$/each after the split.
I wish I could pay my rent with 500 mBTC/month
Watch this spot --> http://spendbitcoins.com/wp/category/housing/house-for-rent/ Hey, it could happen.
I would like to see a census on this also. If a vote was taken would it be implemented by everyone? Its about time this was agreed upon....
When this poll (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=13144.0) is over I propose that we continue in the Development & Technical Discussion forum and decide what (if something) should done.
This is a horrible idea. Just think of what the final number of BTC will then be: 21 trillion. Not one person can wrap his mind around it,
It's not like people will talk a lot about the total number of Bitcoins (do you often here people discussing how big the US monetary base is?). What's interesting is how many Bitcoins I have, how many Bitcoins you have, how many Bitcoins that computer costs etc. Those numbers will not be trillions.
Guys, let's not confuse ourselves here. I'm fine with the prefixes, but only as long as they're not mandatory. And I'm a absolutely against eventually switching the meaning of Bitcoin and BTC to represent micro-Bitcoins. This is a horrible idea. Just think of what the final number of BTC will then be: 21 trillion. Not one person can wrap his mind around it, and it is a prime reason folks hate global economics. It's all the meaningless trillions floating around.
Also: don't forget the "small calorie/large calorie" travesty. Everyone's still confused to this day. cal? Cal? kcal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie
Also: don't forget the "small calorie/large calorie" travesty. Everyone's still confused to this day. cal? Cal? kcal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie
I would like to see a census on this also. If a vote was taken would it be implemented by everyone? Its about time this was agreed upon....
Good idea. But how about a vote with a maximum bid, and earnings go to the faucet?
Jump to: