I agree that we only need 2 units of measure, ...
We only need 1 unit of measure.
So now you want to get rid of bitcoin as well. ...
You introduced the idea of going to small units entirely, and I merely adopted that notion for the shake of argument, to show you how we don't need a special word for 100 satoshis.
...What do you think would happen if you asked the general public to drop the dollars and only use cents?
This comparision is invalid. You just can't equate satoshis and cents. Here's the reason:
- A cent (as in percent) implies being a fraction of something. Therefore, a cent is not a thing itself, but merely a fraction of an other thing. For example, a dollar cent is a fraction of a dollar, a euro cent is a fraction of a euro, and so on.
- A satoshi is a thing of its own. Satoshi is a proper noun. The word "satoshi", by itself, contains no reference to being a fraction of a bitcoin.
The term "satoshi" is on the same linguistic level as the terms "dollar" and "euro". One could even think of introducing a "satoshi cent", which would obviously be one 100th of a satoshi. (Currently, the blockchain doesn't allow transacting individual satoshi cents, yet the protocol could be extended to do so.)
We need 2 units, only the bitcoin will not be one of them. ...
So now you want to get rid of bitcoin as well??
...A "bitcoin" will be so huge that only the wealthy will own them. It will be somewhat of a status symbol, kind of like being a "millionarie" in todays world. It will be more of a term to describe the protocol.
For the general public we need 2 units:
Bits/Mikes/Fins whichever we agree upon. This will be .000001 unit.
and Satoshis. 100 of which will fit into the above unit.
This is a sensible way to rollout bitcoin to the general public. As soon as you tell them that a bottle of coke costs 45 bits plus a handful of satoshis for tax, the 2 unit setup rings a bell as something familiar.
My aim is not to make it sound as something familiar, but to find the least confusing way of quoting a price.
And yes: More units means more confusion. 4 567 satoshis is easier to understand than "45 bits and 67 satoshis".
anyone thinking that people cant understand more than 2 names for currency.
well:
a cent, penny,
5cents, nickel, jefferson, half-dime
10cents, dime, Roosevelt
blah blah blah
dollar, buck, greenbacks, washington note, 1-note, a single, a bone
5 dollars, 5-note, 5-spot, 5-bucks, lincoln
10 dollars, 10-note, 10-spot, 10-bucks, hamilton,
blah blah blah
you getting the picture?
in most cases names are not given for micro amounts, gold fiat, commodity's in a top down perspective. they given names in a bottom up.
thus i think the accountants and nerds can stick with their "micro"/"ubit" rationale. whilst average joe public can cope with the "bit"/"finney" nicknames.
Imagine you are a Japanese tourist on your first day in the USA. At home you were told that the US currency is dollars and cents.
Now people are suddenly talking about nickels, dimes, jeffersons, greenbacks and whatnot...
Wouldn't that be confusing to you?
My website is intended for people who are new to bitcoin. It's for people who just have their first day in bitcoinland.
Thus I want to use as few units as possible. I'm afraid that any additional units might be confusing to my site's users.
(Of course, geeks and insiders might still talk about micros, bits, finneys, ubits, and whatever.)