Using uBTC or mBTC will never work. The only way to use a smaller subdivision is to shift the decimal point and continue to use BTC as a unit.
This makes the most sense by far.
Topic: uBTC is better than mBTC, and here's why. (Read 3722 times)
This makes the most sense by far.
I just read up on pre-decimal denominations of United Kingdom. Maybe we can borrow something from that old system:
| Inspiration | Name | Value |
| Pounds | Bitcoin | 1.00000000 |
| Shillings | Bitshilling | 0.00100000 |
| Pence | Bitpence | 0.00000100 |
| (farthing) | Satoshi | 0.00000001 |
Using uBTC or mBTC will never work. The only way to use a smaller subdivision is to shift the decimal point and continue to use BTC as a unit.
If people decide to use uBTC's, call them 'bits' instead of uBTC.
1 million 'bits' in a bitcoin.
1 million 'bits' in a bitcoin.
+1
Then you could say 1.44MB or 360KB.
It would make my old Floppy Disks look valuable, lol.
On edit: that's bytes not bits, but I got a laugh anyway
If people decide to use uBTC's, call them 'bits' instead of uBTC.
1 million 'bits' in a bitcoin.
1 million 'bits' in a bitcoin.
+1
I'm on the fence but actually I'm starting to like the idea of uBTC instead of mBTC. That way if a further split was needed, it would have to be at protocol level, since with uBTC the cent/penny would be a satoshi. Also, it's quite possible that with mBTC the value will quickly go beyond any fiat currency, again making Bitcoin different in most likely negative ways ("it's an investment, not a currency").
A product worth 1 € would be approximately 1700 uBTC right now. A product worth 10 € would be approximately 170 uBTC. These are quite reasonable numbers. I think we have some currencies that are like this already. It's fine, and even fairly common, for some currencies to have low unit valuations like this. However it's extremely uncommon for a currency to have more decimals than the cent/penny.
Regardless, what we need for these changes is for a major Bitcoin service to make a move. Someone has to implement it and then others can follow. I'd be fine with mBTC as well but I'm starting to like the uBTC idea.
A product worth 1 € would be approximately 1700 uBTC right now. A product worth 10 € would be approximately 170 uBTC. These are quite reasonable numbers. I think we have some currencies that are like this already. It's fine, and even fairly common, for some currencies to have low unit valuations like this. However it's extremely uncommon for a currency to have more decimals than the cent/penny.
Regardless, what we need for these changes is for a major Bitcoin service to make a move. Someone has to implement it and then others can follow. I'd be fine with mBTC as well but I'm starting to like the uBTC idea.
This proposal is just interstep to use of Satoshis...and we will be using them soon 
Soon? Hmm not sure that 1btc = $1 million USD any time soon
Against. We should use mBTC now.
This is really unfortunate because I just switched my pricing to mBTC...
At this moment I believe mBTC is best. We will likely hover close to $1000/BTC for a while and that will make 1 mBTC close to 1 dollar. That will make things easy.
I think uBTC is premature. What we want is a unit that's close in value to a dollar or euro. The day may come when bitcoin is worth so much that it would make sense to switch to uBTC, but that's years away, if ever. Now would be a good time for mBTC.
If you want to use μBTC, just use μBTC. The clients have supported changing the unit for years. It's the exchanges and sites and such that are lagging behind.
I wonder how many of these topics there already have been in the last two years (many!). It just doesn't work. Even though everyone agrees that using smaller subdivisions is better, everyone wants a different subdivision.
In a distributed project you cannot force anyone to use your preferred unit. The only thing that might be effective to get bigger adoption for your idea is if you educated the larger community.
Maybe create a nice user friendly campaign site (and have it translated to many languages) that explains exactly what a μBTC is and why people would want to use it.
I wonder how many of these topics there already have been in the last two years (many!). It just doesn't work. Even though everyone agrees that using smaller subdivisions is better, everyone wants a different subdivision.
In a distributed project you cannot force anyone to use your preferred unit. The only thing that might be effective to get bigger adoption for your idea is if you educated the larger community.
Maybe create a nice user friendly campaign site (and have it translated to many languages) that explains exactly what a μBTC is and why people would want to use it.
I Don't know why more markers aren't doing this already. With such a denomination , you'd see a lot more people buying these "cheap" coins. Someone would go buy 20-30 uBTC for almost nothing. This would then cause the price to go up much faster as well. Should be done ASAP.
I like the idea. In stock market, we already has stock split which helps reduce the stock price (therefore increase sales) and but keep capitalization value intact.
I believe that switching to uBTC will make novice people think BTC is cheaper and affordable to buy. The more people owns BTC, the bigger network effect in Bitcoin is, which is a very good thing for mass market adoption.
I believe that switching to uBTC will make novice people think BTC is cheaper and affordable to buy. The more people owns BTC, the bigger network effect in Bitcoin is, which is a very good thing for mass market adoption.
Agreed, who needs to lead this? Whats the plan of action?
no one entity decides.. all the exchanges, wallets, clients, and users will have to decide when it's best. if, say coinbase wanted to do it, they could.. but then all of the other exchanges would be displayed in BTC.
Agreed, who needs to lead this? Whats the plan of action?
If people decide to use uBTC's, call them 'bits' instead of uBTC.
1 million 'bits' in a bitcoin.
1 million 'bits' in a bitcoin.
The idea itself is alright, but consider the front it presents. Overconfidence is dangerous, and it is REALLY overconfident to declare to the world that bitcoin is the future until it actually IS the future.
Take it step by step. When you start hearing random people (or even better, the media) talking about the need to switch again, you know bitcoin has made it big. If that never happens, well, then it failed and it would be pointless anyway.
Take it step by step. When you start hearing random people (or even better, the media) talking about the need to switch again, you know bitcoin has made it big. If that never happens, well, then it failed and it would be pointless anyway.
This proposal is just interstep to use of Satoshis...and we will be using them soon
If 1 SAT is ever worth a dollar, there will have to be a lot of off-chain transactions, or the protocol will need to be changed.
This proposal is just interstep to use of Satoshis...and we will be using them soon
Jump to: