Bitcoin Forum

As bitcoins increase in value, you will start to see amounts such as 0.000057 BTC in everyday use.  As discussed here on the forums, eventually we will need to move the decimal place.  When we do, we must create a three-letter currency code, one that does not already conflict with ISO 4217 currency codes: http://www.xe.com/iso4217.php

One proposal floated on IRC is "UBC", representing 1e-6 bitcoins.  Rather than the full 1e-8, UBC would leave two decimal places to mimic familiar behavior in other currencies.

Thus, 0.12345678 BTC would become 123456.78 UBC.  The current TX minimum-fee (0.01 BTC) is 10000 UBC and the proposed new minimum (0.0005 BTC) is 500 UBC.


Q: Why not "satoshis" or "nanocoins" or other alternatives?
A: The project has invested 2+ years into the marketing of the word "bitcoins", and that should not be abandoned.

Q: Should it be "uBC"?
A: No; ISO standards and currency software want ALL CAPS.

One question.

BTC = Bitcoin
UBC = ?

MicroBitcoin

I'm calling it a Mike.

microcoin?

"Gimme one coffee to go, please."

"That'll be 500 mikes, pal."

I like it.

as you said yourself, keeping 'bitcoin' in there is probably a good idea. microbitcoin, or 'mike' or 'ubic' :)

Yeah, it's good. Not my idea, someone in another thread. I'm still waiting for Mike and Mille (10^-3) cartoons (or porn).

I don't know if another currency code is needed. USD isn't going to get a new one when you need a billion for a sandwich.

"Want a 2oz coffee, Sam? That's 4,000 BUS (billion USD)"

Hmmm, maybe it will come in handy.

In general I agree; but I think it's ok in this case, because BTC will become more rare over time, until it's largely a relic of "the first couple years of currency bootstrapping"

People don't have too much problem using large numbers, but small decimals are problematic. Even companies get it wrong:

http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-dollars-from-cents.html

I think this is a great idea - it always felt odd to me that 1e-8 was just between 1e-6 (micro) and 1e-9 (nano). Calling the smallest amount 0.01 UBC really does make sense in my opinion. It is future-proof, gives a familiar feeling and does not make the prices of the near future too large.

Sure, but since bitcoins are non-inflationary it will not be necessary to ever change it again - UBC with two decimal digits is the ultimate currency unit within the limits of the current bitcoin protocol.

+1 for UBC

+1 for µBitcoin = UBC.

I guess UBC will become like decibel, the unit that everyone uses even though it's really a fraction of the base unit (bel). :)

I'm all for it.
I miss the days of throwing around huge amounts of bitcoins. This will bring that feeling back. 
And come on UBC/USD parity...

I gotta bury few BTCs till 1UBC=1USD

Oh, absolutely. I'm not saying that normal folk should use tiny fractions. There will certainly be a general use word that emerges whenever more precision becomes common out of necessity. I'm just thinking that two currency codes for different denominations is odd. And no one is going to make one code 'official' anyway.

i like Mike?

University of British Columbia?  ;D

One upon a time, people will be telling stories about some fool who paid 10 billion UBC for a pizza!

I like it!

I’d rather call it uBTC to preserve the already most common abbreviation. BTC, mBTC and uBTC seems most intuitive to me …

Calling them Mills and Mikes is nice.

Another possibility would be to refer to the base units as Bitcoins and establish KBTC and MBTC, so that the uppercase letters make sense.

Odd perhaps, but not unprecedented. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_z%C5%82oty

That's not two currency codes simultaneously, though - that's one code replacing another as one currency (old złotych) was replaced by another (new złotych), like Deutsch Marks replacing Reich Marks, which in turn replaced old Marks.

The only example I can find is actually the US Dollar: USD, USS, and USN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_4217#Explanation_of_USD.2FUSS.2FUSN).

I would favor something different : when the decimal place is moved in the default implementation we just call "a bitcoin" whatever happens to be the smallest integer value after the decimal shift.

Happened in France the other way around when we switched from "old francs" to "new francs" with a "new franc" being worth exactly 100 "old" ones.

After a couple of weeks of slight confusion, everything would be back in order :)

+100 
(which is the same thing as old +1)


You are essentially describing what happens with a stock split.
"What do you mean, a bitcoin is worth 100 times less?" 
"It's ok Mom, you have 100 times as many now."

ZOMG 21 trillion Bitcoins. Bitcoin is broken.

Heh, I would like the idea that it would be possible for every human being to hold one :D

No, it should be μBC...  Oh, in Caps, that's MBC.

M as in capital Mu, as in Micro-.

I guess it you want to pay homage to SI unit prefixes (microbitcoin), you shouldn't bastardize it by calling lowercase Mu, u or uppercase Mu, U.

We could just call them bitcoins. The tiny font indicates that you're talking about a little bitcoin, which is one millionth of a big bitcoin. In real life, you'd communicate this by sensuously whispering the word "bitcoin" or saying it in a higher-pitched voice like it's a tiny cartoon version of a bitcoin.

Eventually, people will just start calling bitcoins as we know them "big bitcoins" and the bitcoins will be just "bitcoins", which is what happened with food calories versus Calories (kcals).

This would be a lot easier if they were originally named "bitbucks." Bitcoins would naturally be a fraction of a bitbuck.

Or we could call them bitcoin bits, or "bit bits". Then when values inflate 1000x again, we'll talk about denominations of "bitbitcoin bits" or "bitbitbits". Geeze, guys, do I have to solve all of the problems around here?

LOL

That makes more sense. I don't know why we have to follow this ISO standards anyway.


Regarding he standard implementation, it doesn't need to change. Or if it's ever going to, it could allow the user to select the unit he wants to be displayed.

<pedantry>
The greek μ character is an m, not a u. Writing it as a u looks childish and illiterate IMO.
</pedantry>

MBC for millibitcoins.

MUC for microbitcoins.

By the time things are priced in microbitcoins, Bitcoin will be so widespread and generic that everyone will just call them 'Coins.

That would actually work in China.

Using u as a replacement for µ is the de facto standard when you're limited to ASCII.

The ISO 4217 convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_4217#Code_formation) is that global, non-national currencies begin with an "X" (gold is XAU, special drawing rights is XDR, ...). So how about:

µBTC = XBC

+1

XBC = 100 Satoshis

I like :)

some time ago I wrote on the forums that another possible denomination for something close to 1e-6 BTC might be SmallBitcoin. The code would be SBC or SBT, and one could just refer to them as "smalls"... But I do agree "Mikes" could be even better.

XBC sounds almost good but somehow reminds me of xbox, don't ask me why...

I'm in favor of this proposal. It's both future proof and backwards compatible.

The problem with replacing an existing term is, that you create confusion during the transition where people need to figure out, whether you use the old or the new meaning of the term. For an open-source project like Bitcoin it can be pretty difficult to make an organized and well-communicated switch from one meaning to the other. So I think it's better to make up something new, like the proposed UBC. This is what I mean with backwards compatible.

And the fact that 0.01 UBC would be the smallest possible value seems very future proof.

As to the suggestion of XBC: I think I would prefer UBC over XBC, but wouldn't mind either one.

"Universal Bit Coin", quite distinct from the early-adopter's bootup period old-bitcoin "Bitcoin Temporary Centuries" (BTC)  which were designed as a temporary measure to appear as one hundred of an arbitrarily chosen power of ten of satoshis in early alpha and beta stage clients.

-MarkM-

I like XBC.  But I also wouldn't mind just staying with BTC and just changing the decimal place.  I would even say do it now while the use of BTC is relatively small.  It could even generate a bit of press saying bitcoins became so valuable the needed to split.  ;)

In the best-case scenario, the ISO will eventually decide on a currency code through the usual standards process (whatever that is).

It would save a good deal of confusion and programming trouble down the road if we could predict (and possibly influence) today what they will decide.

I doubt very much that UBC or BTC will be the code, because these imply an issuing country whose code is UB (not assigned AFAIK) or BT (Bhutan?).

XBC seems taken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Unit_of_Account

I would suggest using "BC" as the first two letters, even though Bitcoin is not a country.  "BC" appears unused in ISO (though other standards assign it to Botswana).  In some ways, Bitcoin is country-like, especially in the open-source structure with "government" by committers, moderators, domain registrants, and big stakeholders generally.  And Bitcoin may well have use for more currency codes in the future, so I like flexibility in the third character.

So... BTC will likely never become official in the sense of 100 million satoshis.  I don't think we need to make an ISO-compatible code for that unit.  I think BCB (Bitcoin bitcoin) is the best bet for the 100-satoshi unit.  Alternatives that come to mind: BC1 (first standardized Bitcoin), BCU (UBC switched around or "Bitcoin unit"), BC6 (original BTC times 10^-6), BC2 (10^2 satoshis, or second colloquial meaning of "bitcoin"), XB1 (X conforming to the non-country rule, B for Bitcoin, 1 to avoid collision with old EU codes that used a letter here).  (I am not sure ISO would consider including a numeral in the code.)

I don't think we should try to separate the "Bitcoin brand" from the unit expected to be in common use, so like the "old franc and new franc" I expect to call the new thing just a bitcoin, eventually.  Whether it should be or will be a millionth or some other fraction of an old bitcoin is another question.

Universal Bitcoin Currency
Unused Binary Crap

Indeed, this would be the best option, because a great deal of effort has been spent marketing the name "bitcoin".
However, changing the naming convention is easier when the currency is run by a central authority :-)
Since bitcoin is decentralized, a strong consensus among developers of the various clients would be needed for such a change to take place.

It's not like there are 50 lead developers and 20 implementations of the client ;)

Actually the GUI of the client, just need to shift all decimal places of everything Bitcoin value related, at least one digit for the next release, and say that there will ultimately be a total of 210million, of your fractions of the Bitcoin basket in existence in future.

Yeah this is the best idea I think. No real need to make up a new name. Just change the display in the client.

Ultimate Bitcoin Championship?

It's obsolete since 1979, though. Are codes never reused?

XBT is free.

If only!

I don't know, maybe.  If bonds are denominated in it, they may still be outstanding.  And I'm sure lots of programs, on seeing "XBC", will display "European Unit of Account 9" to the user, which could be a real head-scratcher if the intent was bitcoin.


+1

Yuck. I parse that as "Extreme BitTorrent". Or "Extreme British Telecom".

I vote for this as well.

This happened in many other countries not only France.

I vote for BTC

But then the currency codes change to avoid ambiguity where it matters. The new unit can (and probably will) be called a "bitcoin" but will still need a new currency code. Preferably one compatible with ISO 4217.

+1 for keeping the existing name. Really, every person on the planet should be able to have at least one Bitcoin.

For the transition, people would call them something like small bitcoins (one millionth of the current BTC), and big bitcoins (current 1 BTC).

Maybe the currency codes "ATI" or "AMD" are still available too?

+1 BTC ..I really don't see it as a problem. We have enough precision past the decimal. So what if we're dealing with small numbers, the "Bitcoin" theme is still just getting out for most people, no need to confuse millcoins or microcoins yet. When the value passes $100 US/1 BTC, then we may need a change.

so... in a few months, then? :)

let's just pretend we're in october 2011 and coins are 100usd/btc. what do you choose now? :)

I agree the µBC is a good idea.  Kinda of like pennies compared to the USD only a million times smaller than the BTC.  I mentioned this on another thread, but according to my calculations if BTCs get universally adopted they will eventually reach a point where one µBC is at parity with the USD.  Assuming speculators don't drive it higher than that.  After that point there will be a slow increase in value due to deflationary pressure of slow BTC loss.

UBC to refer to micro Bitcoins is a good idea, but I think the official currency code should remain BTC. Like USD and EUR (both are divided in cents)

A real "UBC" has existed since March: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Universal_Bitcoin
If an actual new unit is desired, this UBC would make more sense.

But if people just want to "move" the decimal point, μBTC already exists. Since it remains decimal-specific, the obvious three-letter code would be DBC (Decimal Bitcoin).

Are you aware that BTC itself is not conformant with ISO 4217 (BT is the code for Bhutan)? So why would we want that the new name to be conformant with it?

Also, why do we need a new name? Similarly, dollars are USD but when talking about cents you don't use another currency name. In the same fashion, bitcoin is BTC and I can see no reason not to be able to use satoshis and NOT some other three letter code.