Topic: When to "move the decimal points" ? - page 4. (Read 17811 times)

Mega bump, but figured this was the best place to share my idea for naming small fractions of BTC.  It may seem complicated, but I think that with practice, this could be a manageable system for both online AND offline payments.  

Given that this is a global currency, and the metric system is used by the majority of the population, we should stick to a metric prefix system, similar to other ideas here in this thread.  I've added a few "rules" to help standardize and simplify the system.

Like so:

1 BTC = 1 Bit
0.1 BTC = 1 Decibit/Dec (Optional)
0.01 BTC = 1 Centibit/Cent
0.001 BTC = 1 Millibit/Mil
0.000,001 BTC = 1 Microbit/Micro
0.000,000,01 BTC = 1 Satoshi

In another form:

1 Bit = 10 Decs
1 Dec = 100 Cents
1 Cent = 100 Mils
1 Mil = 1,000 Micros
1 Micro = 100 Satoshi

Rules:  

1) The smallest unit possible is generally used.  Anything over 1 BTC is generally referred to in decimal (e.g. 1.35 BTC = "One point three five Bits")

2) Trailing zeroes should be used when interpretation of units is ambiguous. (See examples below)

3) Commas are used to the right of the decimal point every three spaces to assist unit assignment

4) Avoid awkward prices (e.g. 1.500,004,80 BTC).  Even so, could be read as "1.5 Bits and 480 Satoshi"

With this, you can easily speak lower prices without talking in decimals all the time. Generally, the fewer non-zero numbers in a BTC price, the better.

Examples:

0.40 BTC = 4 Decs OR 40 Cents
0.45 BTC = 45 Cents
0.452 BTC = 452 Mils
0.002,500 BTC = 2500 Micros OR 0.002,5 = "Two and a half Mils"
0.087 BTC = 87 Mils
0.000,346 BTC = 346 Micros
0.000,049 BTC = 49 Micros
0.000,000,12 = 12 Satoshi
0.000,003,12 BTC = 312 Satoshi

Thoughts, suggestions, criticisms? Having just 8 decimal places instead of 9 makes it slightly less intuitive than it could be when dealing with hundreds of Satoshi, but it's no different than saying that $1.32 is 132 cents.

Why don't we just add the option to trade in the minimum bit coin storable right now, and keep the 2dp for the main screen, leaving that option in some dialogue box somewhere.  That way you can review minute finances, but at the same time just see the 2dp on the main screen still.

If we try to do this algorithmically, then life will be made much harder for the p2p method.  Keep it simple!  My method means simple users can keep the 2dp they're used to, but you have the option to be more precise if you want!

It certainly seems to make sense to have the next term (or even couple of terms or conceivably/dubiously next few terms) already out there right in front of them long before the time comes that they'll actually want/need to use them.

If they've been seeing millibitcoin day after day and maybe wondering what the heck it means and why is it even mentioned by the time an entire week or month goes by and bitcoins have increased in value yet another hundredfold, maybe by then they might have actually googled the word or something.

-MarkM- (Mind you I haven't actually checked that the first results for the term aren't porn sites or anything like that...)

I think we should allow three decimals now, to make very small payments possible, and have a default fee of one millibitcoin for transactions smaller than 0.01 to discourage overuse.  Note the use of millibitcoin to make people used to the word.  It should be configurable in the client to use bitcoins or millibitcoins as the default unit in the client, but for the time being it should default to using whole bitcoins.

Use familiar SI prefixes.  I do not think bitcoins should be used as a means to introduce an entirely new notation like BTC4 or B4C or whatever.  The concept of Bitcoin is hard enough to grasp itself for beginners.  While it s intuitive to most people that a microbitcon is the same as 0.001 bitcoin, just as one millimetre is 0.001 metre and 1 millilitre is 0.001 litre, it is not at all obvious what those alternative notations mean.

Come on!  Everyone knows at least milli.  Perhaps with the exception of countries using some archaic units of measurement.  Millimetre and millilitre is common examples.  The exact meaning of micro and nano may be forgotten by people who are far past their primary education, but are by no means uncommon words.  Even my mother will know which is smaller, and I'll not be surprised if she knows their exact meaning either.

I don't think they have to be mutally exclusive anyway.  I mean, I have enough room im my brain to remember several notation systems, as long as they are not too complex.

In my opinion, yours is not very usefull, since it doesn't even give any prononciation rule. But at least it's simple.

Let's just let people pick the system they like.

Well actually, I'm Polish.
I know a lot of "normal" people, and most of them doesn't know said math prefixes.


Well, this is a valid point.
Still, i think my way is more intuitive.

Oh cool, when the megabucks get given out no-one will know wtf they are so there'll be all more for us!

-MarkM-

Maybe you say that because you are american and most american are not familiar with the metric system, but I assure you that everywhere else in the world people know these prefixes.


Yes they are, at least for "kilo".  I'm pretty sure I've heard an american person talking about how he earned 50 'K', meaning 50 K$, ie 50,000$.

Also, with computers people are getting used to standard prefixes.  They talk about the speed of their processor in KHz, the size of their RAM in Go, the length of a transistor in nm, and so on...

I'm pretty sure they won't mind talking about mBTC, µBTC etc.

Moreover, if the period of variation of value for bitcoin is slow enough, then people will only talk about one our two units in their life time.  They will trade in mBTC for their daily expenses, and talk in BTC for their wage.  50 years later, their children might talk about µBTC or KBTC, who knows,  but the range of their expenses will probably not cover more than 3 or 4 prefixes, I guess.

Bitcoin is a difficult, geeky thing enough itself, and now you want to tech people mathematic notations ?
This is madness. It will take people ages to learn that (i mean majority of "normal" people).

Notation proposed by me is better simply because it is more intuitive by orders of magnitude than "mili", "micro", "nano" and such (which "normal", non-geeky people do not know). These are simply too "geeky" to be accepted & easily understood by general population.
Also AFAIK, these notations were never used in currency. Currencies have their own names for everything. So should bitcoin.

This is a simple matter:
If you want to make Bitcoin difficult - use the metrics notation.
If you want to make Bitcoin easily understandable & intiutive - use my (or similiar) notation.

Go on - ask your mother what "micro", "nano" and "mili" means. I wonder if she knows.

+1 for standard metric prefix.

We only need a name for the smallest unit (10^-8 BTC), since unfortunately is not any of the 10^3 subdivision.  bitdust woudld be fine I guess.

We are trying to drive the adoption of a new idea (i.e. Bitcoin). It tilts the odds towards failure if we also require people to learn other new things, such as unfamiliar notations.

For that reason, the notation should be well-known. It could either be decimal (e.g. 0.001 BTC), or it could use the standard metric prefixes (which are well-known just about everywhere in the world except perhaps the USA, e.g. 1 mBTC), or it could use different names for the smaller units (by analogy with dollars/cents, pounds/pence, e.g. bitcoins/bitcents/bitdust/satoshis/whatever).

I really like this idea, because it can be difficult for people to remember the exact meaning of all those prefixes: mili, micro, nano, centi, etc.

I'd propose another variant though, because of these reasons:
1. Having a number at the end of a unit can be confusing, especially if you have a list of values: 123 BTC3, 345 BTC3...
2. Pardon my ignorance but I never understood why there's a "T" in BTC  anyway
3. Most people associate bigger numbers with larger values.

B8C = BTC
B7C = 0.1 BTC
B6C = 0.01 BTC
...
B0C = 0.00000001 BTC

and if we are lucky:
BX1C = 0.000000001 BTC

That doesn't really make sense, because the overhead of a micropayment is no bigger than the overhead of a large payment.

Perhaps what you mean to say is: "Bitcoin was not designed for a big volume of payments", but nowhere have I seen any statement that mentions what volume of payments Bitcoin was designed for.

I see all comments are "pro" changes, so let me say "con".

Bitcoin was not designed for a big volume of small payments, neither in local data storage nor in network cloud.

All Satoshi's constants were considered very well.

Any changes should be deliberated quite deep.

Anybody could set up its own Bitcoin-backed micropayment service, it will not have all of BitCoin's advantages, but there could be a few players on this market.

--
mtve

Thanks, Hal and Theymos, for clarifying this.

ShadowOfHarbringer: An algorithmic default fee would last longer than a fixed default fee, for sure, but it can't adjust to the future requirements of those who are generating the blocks. Therefore it still needs to be a default that can easily be changed.

It's probably more straightforward, and just as workable in practice, to ship the standard client with a fixed default. This default can be adjusted with each new release of the client to match the realities of the market, provided the end user still has the final control.

It would require creating a new transaction, which might have to have its own fees, which might have to have its own change transactions, etc. The refunded amount would also be at risk of changing in a reorganize, which would invalidate all future transactions based on that one.

A "workable default" will only work for some time. And looking and current rally, not very long time.
It would be better to make an algorithm instead. Perhaps one based on weighed average trade size.

Why don't the excess fees just get returned as change to the originator of the transaction?

This is how I understand transaction fees to work:

- the client offers a fee by creating a tx with a "surplus", ie. the input amount is greater than the output amount

- when a miner creates a block he can create a transaction paying himself up to 50 btc plus the sum of all the tx fees in the block

The miner doesn't have to pay himself that much but the tx fees are lost anyway.