Pages:
Author

Topic: The whole ETH/ETC situation is teaching us what BTC should have done a long time - page 2. (Read 1548 times)

sr. member
Activity: 268
Merit: 250
Maybe a split could happen with the blocksize debate going on?

I think it is wonderful this happened with Etherum first instead of Bitcoin. Hopefully, the hard fork people will take a break and see what happens to Etherum before pushing to fork Bitcoin. I do however, have sympathy for Etherum people and their plight. Maybe both chains can succeed and early adopters can profit from coins on both? I find this whole situation fascinating.
newbie
Activity: 48
Merit: 0
Maybe a split could happen with the blocksize debate going on?
legendary
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3015
Welt Am Draht
ETC may not be much cheaper than ETH for much longer, or one of them may not be around for much longer.

I agree with the OP. People don't like endless zeroes and many are too thick to realise it's divisible. It's a piece of piss to address. There just needs to be some mutual agreement as to how to name things. I wonder that's one thing everyone can agree on. Probably not.
legendary
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1005
Not first time that this discussion appear.

If you want you can use any fraction you want and call it your unit. Some wallets already do it with mBTC already
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 4331
The whole ETH/ETC situation is teaching us what BTC should have done a long time ago.

Ethereum split, creating two chains, ETH and ETC with ETC being exactly the same tech EXCEPT that it is orders of magnitude cheaper.

Then the price of ETC just exploded.

So this confirms my suspiction since the beginning.

Bitcoin should be redenominated, shifting the decimal place, moving it so that instead of 1 BTC = 650 USD, the redenominated Bitcoin would be 1 BTC = 0.65 USD and then you will see a huge adoption. Of course, for each BTC you were holding before the redenomination, you would get the equivalent 1,000 redenominated BTC.

That's the easiest way to increase adoption and make the price jump as a consequence. It's really a usability problem, no one wants to deal with infinitesimal 0.002 to buy a coffee. No one wants to spend 100 bucks to get 0.15 of something else, I know that's stupid but that's how people think.



sorry, not everyone think like that. In investment world higher priced stock is considered more worthy of attention.
BRK-A is $216,400/share. Google is $757.65 and typically, you have to buy at least a share, while you DON'T have to in bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 2408
Merit: 1009
Legen -wait for it- dary
The whole ETH/ETC situation is teaching us what BTC should have done a long time ago.

Ethereum split, creating two chains, ETH and ETC with ETC being exactly the same tech EXCEPT that it is orders of magnitude cheaper.

Then the price of ETC just exploded.

So this confirms my suspiction since the beginning.

Bitcoin should be redenominated, shifting the decimal place, moving it so that instead of 1 BTC = 650 USD, the redenominated Bitcoin would be 1 BTC = 0.65 USD and then you will see a huge adoption. Of course, for each BTC you were holding before the redenomination, you would get the equivalent 1,000 redenominated BTC.

That's the easiest way to increase adoption and make the price jump as a consequence. It's really a usability problem, no one wants to deal with infinitesimal 0.002 to buy a coffee. No one wants to spend 100 bucks to get 0.15 of something else, I know that's stupid but that's how people think.



Except it's not "adoption" per se. It's dividing those who stay true to the original (ETC where the dao is "bugged"), and those who don't care if it's renamed Bernankecoin. Fuck ETH in particular and pretty much fuck ETC too...though I would support ETC over ETH any day ending in "Y".

I see the sense in your point, I had problems understanding the bitcoin concept myself. All the zeros made it confusing, but I think the developer did that to remove the problem of inflation, should bitcoin replace fiat.
But the bitcoin developer is anonymous so who is going to make the change?

There is a team that develops Bitcoin. They are not anonymous and they should never make that change. Satoshi is an unknown, but he's gone, so whatever.

Das
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
I see the sense in your point, I had problems understanding the bitcoin concept myself. All the zeros made it confusing, but I think the developer did that to remove the problem of inflation, should bitcoin replace fiat.
But the bitcoin developer is anonymous so who is going to make the change?
sr. member
Activity: 427
Merit: 250
The whole ETH/ETC situation is teaching us what BTC should have done a long time ago.

Ethereum split, creating two chains, ETH and ETC with ETC being exactly the same tech EXCEPT that it is orders of magnitude cheaper.

Then the price of ETC just exploded.

So this confirms my suspiction since the beginning.

Bitcoin should be redenominated, shifting the decimal place, moving it so that instead of 1 BTC = 650 USD, the redenominated Bitcoin would be 1 BTC = 0.65 USD and then you will see a huge adoption. Of course, for each BTC you were holding before the redenomination, you would get the equivalent 1,000 redenominated BTC.

That's the easiest way to increase adoption and make the price jump as a consequence. It's really a usability problem, no one wants to deal with infinitesimal 0.002 to buy a coffee. No one wants to spend 100 bucks to get 0.15 of something else, I know that's stupid but that's how people think.

Pages:
Jump to: