Topic: Start Using mBTC as Standard Denomination? - page 6. (Read 30872 times)

I'd like to point out that while switching to XBT is important, there is no commonly accepted denomination of XBT as compared to what we currently know as BTC. For example, in the thread grau linked to, the original post proposed XBT as a name for mBTC, while grau later posted the more database compliant idea of having XBT be 100 satoshi, or 1 µBTC.

There are really multiple problems here. The first is the issue with BTC being non-compliant with ISO standards. The second is how we refer to very large or very small amounts of bitcoins. A third is that current financial databases have precision to two decimal places, and no more.

grau's proposed change to a standard of 1 XBT = 1 µBTC attempts to solve the first and third of these issues. It is not a solution to the second issue (which is the topic this thread is intended to be about). As one USD would be equivalent to ~7,700 XBT at the current exchange rate, we still have the issue of very large numbers. If XBT are more reasonably talked about in multiples of 1000, a reasonable solution would be to use kXBT, so that 1 USD ≈ 7.7 kXBT. This is just as much of a decimal place shift as BTC -> mBTC. This does not mean 1 XBT = 1 µBTC is a bad idea, but it is not a solution to the issue this thread was started to talk about, and it is not a substitute for the metric system. As such, I see it as a very out of place option in the poll.

Here are my preferred solutions to the three problems. XBT is a great term, and I'd like to see it in use. I do prefer to have BTC-XBT parity (that is, XBT is simply an ISO-compliant name for BTC). This is the simplest solution, gaining ISO compliance without having debates about whether it should be equivalent to mBTC or µBTC. It solves the problem without forcing users to learn a completely new system for representing their bitcoins. For a user who's more out of the loop and less tech-savvy, a simple rename is easier to understand than a rename with a complete re-denomination.

The solution to the second problem is easy: use the metric system. I fully support the use of mBTC and µBTC, or with BTC-XBT parity, mXBT and µXBT. I don't understand the people saying "Most currencies don't use metric, so we shouldn't either". If most places in the US use the imperial system, does that mean we shouldn't switch to metric? I would argue that both the 100-centric currency system and imperial system are inferior to the standard of metric, and that both should switch to it. As for the naming and push for usage, I feel this is something that will happen with time. As long as people are aware that metric is the way to go, people will start using it in discussion just because it's easier to use. A waiter at a restaurant will realize that it's simpler to say "23 millibits" or "23 millibitcoins" than it is to say "point zero two three bitcoins". We will likely have a gradual change from bitcoin to millibitcoin (I've already started to use it where appropriate), with mBTC-dollar parity being the point where just about everyone uses it. Slang, such as millie, gavin, mil, etc, will develop with time, but that's not something we can democratically vote on or enforce. If we start using millibitcoin, slang will come.

The third issue is easily solved in software. There is always an abstraction layer between the data stored in a database and what is presented to users. That is, the denomination stored in the database does not have to be the denomination presented to the user. Financial institutions can store bitcoin count in µBTC (µXBT) so that they have their two decimal place precision, then present it to anyone who wants to reference it as BTC or mBTC (XBT or mXBT). In the unlikely case that each database entry HAS to have only three characters and there is no abstraction layer whatsoever, they could simply add another table to the database to hold the metric multiplier for each currency stored, or even just change the database. There are so many solutions, and it's not something Bitcoin needs to solve. If the future of currency really does lie in a wide variety of cryptocurrencies, all with their own preferred abbreviations and metric prefixes, it may be the burden of the financial institutions to change their software to accept a wider variety of numbers. Just as Bitcoin is making governments realize that their current systems are inadequate for handling decentralized currency, Bitcoin and the currencies that follow will make financial institutions realize that their systems must be changed as well.

I think we should wait until Bitcoin raises in value more.

I like this. XBT should get more attention!

Also, stop with your "funny-dates". YYYY-MM-DD is the ONLY correct way to type dates. STANDARDS!

I voted Yes, but I should have voted this option:

Switch to XBT. An XBT is 100 satoshi (or 1/1,000,000 BTC). This allows us to have $21,000,000,000,000 units of the base unit of currency, and an exchange rate much less threatening to newcomers.

I like the idea of allowing for more price growth in Bitcoin, and also complying with international standards for having only two decimal places of fractionality.

XBT because X is reserved for supranational in ISO and BT because it got most votes in the community until now. Please stop throwing in new alternatives just for the sake of fun.

MBC or MBT

Virtually none of the existing finance applications or databases storing currency support a precision more than two decimal digits. All finance applications use three capital letter ISO currency codes (mBTC is 4 and mixed case).

You want to store and process Bitcoin where the other currencies are, then it is a must.

Here again a reasoning in more detail: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2326526

June 2nd man.

I thought it was 6th of February as well! You guys gotta think globally...

I think it's 2nd of June..Which is coming.

6th of February?

That's been and gone mate!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name

Naming Bitcoin denominations can have a massive impact.  For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slang_terms_for_money.

I give 200 mBTC as birthday/graduation gifts; way more exciting than 0.2 BTC.

*If* Bitcoin is wildly successful then we will be facing this denomination naming problem again.

We cannot deny our history; 1 BTC is already a valuable thing and could go up in value.

bit = techie but there is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_(money) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shave_and_a_Haircut
coin = http://etymonline.com/?term=coin but I do not know the intent of the original name giver; my guess is they meant to provoke thoughts of gold coins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

The young will accept things more readily; the old will not.  The young are poor; the old are rich.

We are fraught with hidden assumptions, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal.

More like the majority that aren't worried about ever sending or receiving small amounts of bitcoin, but what about start ups looking to accept any amount of btc for donation to their hopefully future business?

Can you explain how it's a must?

People new to Bitcoin will like it from the beginning since it is closer to what they are used to.

It is rather the old Bitcoiners who have to finally get it, that this would help adoption and is actually a must if you were to store Bitcoins in a database or system shared with other currencies.

I like that idea a lot. If it were up to me I think I'd go with it, BUT how would that change the public's perception?

From Grau's post:

1 XBT = 100 satoshi.

That is all you need to remember, just like 1 Dollar = 100 cents.
Conversions between BTC or mBTC and XBT are simple since the thousand separators indicate them.

Milk = 15,000 XBT = mBTC 15
Expensive wine = 990,000 XBT = BTC 0.99 = 990 mBTC
Basic Membership = 9.9 XBT = uBTC 999
Silver Membership = 9,900 XBT = mBTC 9.99
Enterprise Membership = 9,900,000 XBT = BTC 9.99

Of course, commas and decimal points mean different things in different locales, but that's more of an i18n issue than a knock at picking any particular range to use as a valid level.

I believe that if Bitcoin is going to be successful it is going to need to be at the level where talking about a few XBT is similar to talking about a few dollars/yen/whatever.  But for talking about real values I don't see it being useful for a long time yet.

I do agree with the idea that big numbers are easier to think about than mall fractions.  But like it or not the worth of Bitcoin is compared directly to that of USD and so we're probably looking at appreciation of three orders of magnitude until XBT are used directly.