Topic: The only way forward is to split it. - page 2. (Read 2616 times)

I thought everything at the protocol level was processed at the satoshi level (eg zero decimal places) although perhaps this varies between software...? I'm sure you are more of an expert here than me.

But anyway, all the "split" would do in this instance is to 'rename' "one bitcoin" to equal 100 satoshis instead of 100 million (or 100,000 instead of 100 million).

I have to admit, I am all for this. The decimal place is horrible for 99.999% of people; try asking anyone what even a simple sum such as 0.001 + 0.0001 is verbally and I guarantee that they will struggle (i have tried this on many [non-technical] friends myself). Also then ask them to convert this into their native currency by multiplying by, even a round number such as 500. Not happening... Multiply those numbers by a million and people have no problem though.

It is my opinion that mBTC will not solve this problem adequately either; merely further delaying the issue until a point in time when we have more (less-technical) users and more nodes which will have to consent.

My vote would strongly urge to adopt 1x10^-6 (current) BTC in some form, either uBTC (less desirable) or the "stock split" - changing BTC to equal 100 satoshis (most desirable).

I am sure if this was agreed to by a majority in the communtity that a date or block could be set as changeover day to attempt to minimise confusion, which would inevitably follow, breifly. Although with adopting 1x10^-6 BTC the difference should be so incredibly obvious (who will pay 1,000,000x too much for their service!?) that there should not be much issue...

If he really set the limit to 21 billion, people will ask "why not 21 million or 21 thousand"...
Similarly, you could ask why the block reward is 50 btc at first instead of 64 or 1...
IMHO, there is no particular reason when Satoshi decided those magic numbers.

This thread makes me wonder why Satoshi Nakamoto chose the parameters he did when he created bitcoin. Why didn't he set the limit to be 21 billion or 21 trillion? I'm sure he thought of that, and I'm sure he thought about how mass adoption might look like. I'm trying to "get inside his head" and find a good reason to choose 21 million as the hard upper limit, but I'm struggling.

The interface is already changeable.  No company is going to force a change on their consumers/users so they leave for a company which doesn't.  The next version of our site will include the option to display values in mBTC but there is no benefit for anyone to force their consumer to use a new standard so .... they won't.   The only way a change could be forced from "top" would be a hard fork of the protocol.   Bitcoin is decentralized, people in free and open systems often never agree on a single standard.



My issue wasn't with the idea that users will adopt a new unit but the idea that it would be forced from "the top".

The only denomination of bitcoins that is backed by anything relevant is the minimum dust transaction backed by the cost of electricity used to produce it.

I might be missing something, but I think the title of this thread is misleading. The OP isn't proposing any kind of fork, only a naming convention.

I originally voted for satoshi, but then removed and changed to mBTC. I think satoshis is the correct ultimate destination, but if you're talking marketing mBTC would be better. It might even rekindle some of the sub $1 excitement

At the same time I caution about the "so it seems cheap" motive. To me a system with 21 million whole units is pretty sparse when compared to a potential global user base over several billion. That means $400 seems cheap already, and many people are aware of that (note the price stability). There are still about 3,500 NEW bitcoins being created every single day, so adoption IS happening even if not fast enough for some people...

We aren't talking about a change to the bitcoin protocol.  We are talking about user interface changes.  So no, your client would not reject future blocks.

No it wouldn't. My client rejects blocks which don't match the correct Bitcoin protocol.  There are 21M BTC, the current subsidy is 25 BTC and coins are divisible to eight places.   So you are saying if you get all the major cexchanges, service providers, plus wallet developers for all the wallet to all simultaneously change you could force a change.  Even that is incorrect but sorry to break it to you but all those people in that group don't agree on just about anything.   Hell they often don't agree on very non-contraversial changes.   However you believe by magic they will all agree simultaneously on probably the most controversial change to Bitcoin ever?  Really?

When you have to get dozens of people from diverse views with diverse viewpoints and often conflicting agendas to reach a consensus and then gets hundreds of thousands of users to upgrade their software to make that change effective that is by definition "no top".

A split? I'm sorry but I don't think a split simply because some people can't invest in it is a good idea. When a normal stock splits it is not because they want to be able to get peasants to buy the stocks because they feel bad. The usage of mbtc is probably the better route and more mainstream adoption.

Of course there is a "top".  The big exchanges and brokers, along with the core developers.

Two years ago MtGox could have single-handedly switched the denomination and everyone would have updated their services.  Right now there are more big players, but it would only take half a dozen influential people to make the switch happen in a week.

Well then you have a problem.  There is no "top".  Bitcoin is a consensus system.  Blocks from a forked protocol which has more coins than current nodes expect will simply be seen as invalid.  Miners mining those blocks will be wasting hashpower. 

It is very likely Bitcoin will never have a "split.

No currency in the entire world is metric.  The Euro was recently created and could have been created as a metric currency.  It wasn't.  How do you explain that?

I voted for satoshi. mBTC is an ok interim measure, but realistically will also have the same problem. Micro BTC (µB) is not a bad choice; however given that we already have satoshi a factor of 100 away with a memorable name, it is not worth the trouble to focus on µB.

Double face-palm.

i automatically integrate it in my conversation.  if i'm talking about kitteh coins i say 0.0000010 BTC.  for LTC i say 3 uBTC

I voted for mBTC.  EMBEE or Millibits just sound easiest to incorporate and use on a daily basis.

I voted for µB so we just move it once and hope we don't have to do it again for awhile.

These are not facts.  Yankees think they're the center of the universe.  The U.S. is one of the last outposts for imperial units of measure.

1. We have been having these threads for years now.  Everyone who is clued in is in complete agreement that the price per bitcoin is holding back adoption.  The problem is that we're nobodies.  This kind of change has to come from the top.

2. Metric is never going to catch on.  Never.  Just give it up.  If people wanted a metric currency then the Euro would be metric.  No one talks about centieuros or kiloeuros and no one is ever going to talk about millibitcoins.

3.  Real-world splits do not change the name of the currency unit, at least not permanently.  In 1993 Mexico shifted the decimal place on their currency three places.  One new peso was equal to 1000 old pesos.  For three years the new unit was referred to as the "new peso", not millipeso.  After three years they want back to calling it a "peso".  What if we did the same thing with bitcoin?  What if one bitcoin became equal to 100000 "new bitcoins".  Then after three years we went back to simply calling them "bitcoins"?  With stock splits there is no transition period.  Master Card split its shares 1 to 10.  Their stock symbol did not change from MA to dMA because the name of the stock did not change from MasterCard to deciMasterCard.

So there are the facts.  I don't really have any recommendations, because there is no point.

I definitely agree to rpietila. We should implement that mBTC everywhere. More people buy, value raise to higher levels. We need to do something, so let's start from here.