|
Title: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: melvster on May 10, 2013, 04:18:49 PM Since the new update will make it impractical so send one "Satoshi" it looks like the lowest practical amount to send will be:
0.0001 BTC Many people have come to me saying they like bitcoin but find the fractions hard to deal with. Is there a name for one tenth of a "millibit" If not, can we think of a new catchy name? "One Andresen"? :P Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: gadman2 on May 10, 2013, 04:20:05 PM Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: bitbadger on May 10, 2013, 04:56:27 PM How about...
Bitcoin ? Using names other than Bitcoin - Andresen, Millibit, Satoshi etc will just confuse people. Instead, redenominate the Bitcoin as 0.0001 BTC and rename the present Bitcoin a Satoshi. So you will have 1.0 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 Satoshi. 0.0001 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 (new) Bitcoin Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: wumpus on May 10, 2013, 04:57:45 PM How about... Bitcoin ? Using names other than Bitcoin - Andresen, Millibit, Satoshi etc will just confuse people. Instead, redenominate the Bitcoin as 0.0001 BTC and rename the present Bitcoin a Satoshi. So you will have 1.0 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 Satoshi. 0.0001 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 (new) Bitcoin Yeah, that won't confuse people, I'm sure... ;D Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: bitnoob on May 10, 2013, 05:03:36 PM I call it "Point zero zero zero one Bitcoins"
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: DeathAndTaxes on May 10, 2013, 05:06:27 PM millicoin informally.
If I was pricing something in print I would just use mBTC. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: RoadToHell on May 10, 2013, 05:09:17 PM millicoin informally. If I was pricing something in print I would just use mBTC. Wouldn't millicoin imply 0.001 BTC? (one less decimal place) Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: RoadToHell on May 10, 2013, 05:11:56 PM How about 4bit? This would be in line with a broader convention that abbreviates the number of decimal place shifts. So 2bit would be 0.01, 3bit would be 0.001, and so on.
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: kjj on May 10, 2013, 05:17:54 PM I agree. This is far too urgent to put off until people come up with their own slang terms, we must decide this now, once and for all. It is also a matter too important to let languish in any of the hundred other threads, we should each make one new thread about it.
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: melvster on May 10, 2013, 05:19:15 PM The new minimum will be 10% of an mBTC (sometimes called a millibit) .01 is often called a "bitcent" I think people are OK with slang terms ... consider the USD, people use the term "buck" "dime" "quarter" "penny" comfortably etc. In the UK the term "quid" means 1GBP and "monkey" means 500 GBP Dealing with fractions is mentally taxing, having easy to remember terms can help ... and maybe even get into the bitcoin dictionary! :D Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Kupsi on May 10, 2013, 06:18:40 PM 0.1 mBTC or 100 uBTC
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BTC Books on May 10, 2013, 06:31:20 PM A skillionth of a whillibit.
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: DeathAndTaxes on May 10, 2013, 06:49:17 PM millicoin informally. If I was pricing something in print I would just use mBTC. Wouldn't millicoin imply 0.001 BTC? (one less decimal place) Yes. Oops didn't notice the extra zero. Yeah there is no reason to name the 0.0001. It currently has a value of ~0.12 US cents. Nobody is going to use it in conversation or pricing. Saying "the dust threshold is 0.5mBTC" understood by just about everyone. Still not sure why the devs decided to make it 0.543 mBTC I mean it is likely the 0.043 mBTC has any real significance. Just make it a nice round "half mBTC". The min output most miners will accept is half a millicoin. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: phillyj on May 10, 2013, 06:52:08 PM It currently has a value of ~0.12 US cents. A dollar is a dollar even if it is only 0.77EUR. Should be the same for BTC. If mBTC (1/1000 th) is no longer used, then it will get discontinued. Just like 50 cent pieces or 2 dollars. So what's the penny, nickles, etc equivalents of bitcoins? Make the Satoshi=100BTC? Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: uMMcQxCWELNzkt on May 10, 2013, 06:55:13 PM I hate all the suggestions so far just for the record. :P
How about MicroBTC or perhaps an alphabetical order so ABTC, BBTC, CCTC? Instead of making a load if different names for each decimal place I feel some degree or order is needed. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: R2D221 on May 10, 2013, 06:57:12 PM How about... Similar to what happened to the Mexican peso, but the other way round.Bitcoin ? Using names other than Bitcoin - Andresen, Millibit, Satoshi etc will just confuse people. Instead, redenominate the Bitcoin as 0.0001 BTC and rename the present Bitcoin a Satoshi. So you will have 1.0 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 Satoshi. 0.0001 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 (new) Bitcoin 1 New Mexican Peso (MXN) = 1000 Old Mexican Pesos (MXP). Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: AbsoluteZero on May 10, 2013, 07:42:14 PM 0.0001 BTC Lets call it 10,000 Satoshis Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BitcoinUK on May 10, 2013, 08:21:07 PM having names for smaller denominations is not confusing..
back in the Victorian days the UK had: farthing £0.0025 penny £0.01 tupence £0.02 shilling £0.05 pound. £1.00 fiver £5.00 tenner £10.00 ..and so on even now the americans have: penny/cent $0.01 nickel $0.05 dime $0.10 quarter $0.25 dollar/buck $1.00 lincoln $5.00 benjamin $100.00 i do however reject the idea to call a bitcoin anything less then 100000000 satoshi's and i reject calling a satoshi anything more then 0.00000001 bitcoins. anything else in between can be named something, but knowing human evolution, using the terms microbitcoin and millibitcoins will if fully adopted, be reduced to a mike or milly as people start giving them lazy names using less syllables Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Inedible on May 10, 2013, 08:29:06 PM It should be called 1 fortnight furlongs per hogshead dollar.
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: dserrano5 on May 10, 2013, 09:11:42 PM
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Elwar on May 10, 2013, 09:19:12 PM .000001 is a microBitcoin or a "Mickey".
We should name the new low, 5340 Satoshies as a "Gavin". Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Peter Lambert on May 10, 2013, 09:25:30 PM Since the new update will make it impractical so send one "Satoshi" it looks like the lowest practical amount to send will be: 0.0001 BTC Many people have come to me saying they like bitcoin but find the fractions hard to deal with. Is there a name for one tenth of a "millibit" If not, can we think of a new catchy name? "One Andresen"? :P Just call it 0.1 mB (that is read zero-point-one milli-bit) Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: R2D221 on May 10, 2013, 11:16:54 PM having names for smaller denominations is not confusing.. But back in the Victorian days, there was 12 pence in one shilling, and 20 shillings in one pound. That means one penny was £0.00416... and not £0.01.back in the Victorian days the UK had: farthing £0.0025 penny £0.01 tupence £0.02 shilling £0.05 pound. £1.00 fiver £5.00 tenner £10.00 ..and so on Also, “tupence” is just “two pence”, and “fiver” and “tenner” are just 5er and 10er. If we follow this logic, then the most suitable names would be millies and mickeys, since they come from the suffix (milli- and micro-). Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: shields on May 10, 2013, 11:41:21 PM I call them 'runts'. It's catchy and memorable.
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BitcoinUK on May 11, 2013, 12:26:47 AM But back in the Victorian days, there was 12 pence in one shilling, and 20 shillings in one pound. That means one penny was £0.00416... and not £0.01. Also, “tupence” is just “two pence”, and “fiver” and “tenner” are just 5er and 10er. If we follow this logic, then the most suitable names would be millies and mickeys, since they come from the suffix (milli- and micro-). nice knitpicking, now for my counter offer. NONE i wont get personal. but back to the topic at hand sticking with bitcoins as 100,000,000 satoshi and a satoshi as 0.00,000,001 bitcoin. should be enforced. and then having other names inbetween wont be confusing. but changing the decimal values of what a bitcoin/satoshi is.. now that is confusing Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: theymos on May 11, 2013, 12:37:55 AM supersatoshi?
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Prattler on May 11, 2013, 12:42:30 AM 0.0001 BTC = 0.1 mBTC
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: bitbadger on May 11, 2013, 04:09:14 AM How about... Yeah, that won't confuse people, I'm sure... ;DBitcoin ? Using names other than Bitcoin - Andresen, Millibit, Satoshi etc will just confuse people. Instead, redenominate the Bitcoin as 0.0001 BTC and rename the present Bitcoin a Satoshi. So you will have 1.0 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 Satoshi. 0.0001 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 (new) Bitcoin I don't think Satoshi is the ideal name, it's meant as an example. Better to use something with "bit" in the name, since that can be regarded as the brand identifier for Bitcoin. Also better for the names to be two syllable maximum since its easier and quicker to pronounce. Anything longer tends to get abbreviated or cut down and given a shorter nickname by people and you then end up with something different to what was originally intended. Important thing is to keep it simple. Look at the Euro. When they were brainstorming names people came up with the idea of calling it something with "euro" in it. So they started out thinking in terms of calling it something like EuroFranc, EuroMark even EuroDollar etc. And even more complex combinations, some using Latin words, and trying to make the name sound profound. In the event they just settled for Euro - 2 syllables, quick, snappy, everyone happy... except the Greeks ;-) How about just "Bitcoin" and "Bit"? You could then keep the present 1 BTC = 1 Bitcoin, and call the 0.0001 BTC = 1 Bit. The currency code could be BIT. So 10,000 BIT = 1 BTC. A "bit" is also a digital term, but it doesn't crop up in most daily conversation, so little chance of confusion. Can't get more simple than that. What do people think? Bitcoin and Bit could get my vote! Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Realpra on May 11, 2013, 05:19:41 AM Since the new update will make it impractical so send one "Satoshi" it looks like the lowest practical amount to send will be: "BTC10 Kilo Satoshi" or "BTC10 KS"0.0001 BTC Many people have come to me saying they like bitcoin but find the fractions hard to deal with. Is there a name for one tenth of a "millibit" If not, can we think of a new catchy name? "One Andresen"? :P Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: jubalix on May 11, 2013, 05:25:37 AM CSB
cannot spend bit... Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: cointon on May 11, 2013, 06:26:34 AM To simplify, the name of the smallest unit could be changed from satoshis to bit.
That removes the need to think in fractions of btc all the time, e.g. 0.0001 btc, or adopt additional nomenclature. We should only think in a single unit, bit. So the answer is... 10,000 bit. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: bonker on May 11, 2013, 06:30:24 AM Perhaps Bitcoin subdivisions should be named after body parts, to relate their importance:
1BTC = bitcoin 0.1BTC - brain 0.01BTC - heart 0.001BTC- lung 0.0001BTC - penis 0.00001BTC - balls I could go on.... just a though, Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Inedible on May 11, 2013, 09:18:39 AM having names for smaller denominations is not confusing.. But back in the Victorian days, there was 12 pence in one shilling, and 20 shillings in one pound. That means one penny was £0.00416... and not £0.01.back in the Victorian days the UK had: farthing £0.0025 penny £0.01 tupence £0.02 shilling £0.05 pound. £1.00 fiver £5.00 tenner £10.00 ..and so on Also, “tupence” is just “two pence”, and “fiver” and “tenner” are just 5er and 10er. If we follow this logic, then the most suitable names would be millies and mickeys, since they come from the suffix (milli- and micro-). That the Victorians were happy with unusual names and units isn't what I'd call a great reason to continue in their ways. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Kazimir on May 11, 2013, 09:19:17 AM Perhaps Bitcoin subdivisions should be named after body parts, to relate their importance: In that case, you seem to have mixed up the order.Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Kazimir on May 11, 2013, 09:26:09 AM Anyway, I'd say 0.0001 BTC is called "a hundred microBit" or "point one milliBit".
In writing: 0.1 mBTC or 100 uBTC Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: jamesblack on May 11, 2013, 10:01:05 AM little bitcoin ? ;D
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: melvster on May 11, 2013, 11:31:11 AM 0.0001 BTC (Bitcoin) = 1 NAK (Nakamoto) 1 mBTC = 10 NAK that's a good one in financial terms 1/10,000th is normally referred to as a "basis point" or bp (pronounced "Bip") maybe just Bip with the fancy B would be universal ... Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: demon on May 11, 2013, 12:02:39 PM 0.001 BTC = 1 bit
1000 bit = 1 BTC 0.01 BTC = bcent Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Hfleer on May 11, 2013, 01:00:10 PM Anyway, I'd say 0.0001 BTC is called "a hundred microBit" or "point one milliBit". In writing: 0.1 mBTC or 100 uBTC I agree with this. Keep it simple. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: eBot on May 11, 2013, 01:34:39 PM Minibit ? :D
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: cointon on May 11, 2013, 03:42:02 PM Why does everyone want to think in fractions of btc and introduce: centibit, milibit, microbit, satoshi, etc. into common usage?
The entire problem can be simply solved by naming a satoshi a 'bit', and using bit as the most common unit of denomination. Everything in bit. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: johnyj on May 11, 2013, 03:43:18 PM 1 bitcoin = 100 bitcarat
1 bitcarat = 100 bitgrain 1 bitgrain = 100 bitnano 1 bitnano = 100 satoshi Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: melvster on May 11, 2013, 04:42:38 PM 1 bitcoin = 100 bitcarat 1 bitcarat = 100 bitgrain 1 bitgrain = 100 bitnano 1 bitnano = 100 satoshi I think you mean 1 bitcoin = 100 bitcent 1 bitcent = 100 bitgrain 1 bitgrain = 100 microbit 1 microbit = 100 satoshi Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: uMMcQxCWELNzkt on May 11, 2013, 05:11:41 PM One thing I hope we can agree on is that our native currencies are not incorporated into the Bitcoin terminology. I already dislike the fact Bitcoins has thosenvertical bars.
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: triox on May 11, 2013, 05:52:31 PM Chaum.
Here's the rest of my proposal for the naming scheme: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196867.0 Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: R2D221 on May 11, 2013, 06:27:07 PM But back in the Victorian days, there was 12 pence in one shilling, and 20 shillings in one pound. That means one penny was £0.00416... and not £0.01. Also, “tupence” is just “two pence”, and “fiver” and “tenner” are just 5er and 10er. If we follow this logic, then the most suitable names would be millies and mickeys, since they come from the suffix (milli- and micro-). That the Victorians were happy with unusual names and units isn't what I'd call a great reason to continue in their ways. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BitBank on May 11, 2013, 11:32:06 PM 0.001 BTC = 1 bit 1000 bit = 1 BTC 0.01 BTC = bcent I'm pretty sure that 0.001 BTC will be eventually be called 1 bit. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BitBank on May 11, 2013, 11:32:58 PM Chaum. Here's the rest of my proposal for the naming scheme: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196867.0 Love the references to Austrians, however you need to realize that 99.999% of people who use bitcoins have no idea who Carl Menger is. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Stephen Gornick on May 12, 2013, 01:45:54 AM Anyway, I'd say 0.0001 BTC is called "a hundred microBit" or "point one milliBit". In writing: 0.1 mBTC or 100 uBTC I agree with this. Keep it simple. Agreed here as well. Just like we didn't automatically switch to using mBTC once a bitcoin passed parity with the dollar, there won't be any urgent need to jump to uBTC once prices below a single mBTC are more common. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BlueNote on May 12, 2013, 02:32:38 AM Bitcoin/bit/Satoshi
I've been pushing that we call the midpoint at .0001 simply a bit. The symbol is BIT. Fits perfectly with BITcoin. Gets us away from bulky metric prefixes. It also cleanly divides the 8 decimal places in two. We can describe the whole range with these three terms. These terms are cool, snappy, logical, marketable. A bit right now is only $.0115. Imagine that we adopt this unit and the exchanges display this price. What's to stop people from buying thousands of bits? Looks like the sale of the century compared to $115 per BTC, which is a strong psychological turnoff. It'll look like a penny stock. It would almost be like re-issuing the currency with clever marketing and a low price. It's a fresh start to begin the next phase of adoption. I think that mBTC and suchlike are just awful. We have no coinage, so we don't need to use names like this. All we need to do is describe a range of this number. A bitcoin is a number. With three non-mathematical names that are easy to remember we can forever describe any amount. You have one rule of thumb for conversion: 10,000. A Bitcoin is 10,000 bits. A bit is 10,000 Satoshis. Simple. Elegant. No mouthful of metric jumbles and eyesores. No list of 8 geeky multi-syllabic names. What else should the acting base unit of Bitcoin be called other than a bit? Got bits? Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BitBank on May 12, 2013, 02:37:10 AM It also cleanly divides the 8 decimal places in two. actually, Gavin is almost cutting the number of decimal places in half with the newest release of the official client. I believe 0.00053 is now going to be the lowest possible amount that can be sent. If a bit is classified as a mBTC (0.001) that would work perfectly. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BlueNote on May 12, 2013, 02:46:33 AM The entire problem can be simply solved by naming a satoshi a 'bit', and using bit as the most common unit of denomination. Everything in bit. Bit is a perfect name, but it has to be at the midpoint of .0001 and then we keep Satoshi for the smallest units. Otherwise the numbers will be too large to manage. Calling the midpoint a bit means that our numbers will not exceed 10,000. If you have 10,000 Satoshi's, you have 1 bit. If you have 10,000 bits, you have 1 BTC. These numbers and names are eminently manageable, and their presentation is very clean and elegant. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: theymos on May 12, 2013, 02:51:16 AM A Bitcoin is 10,000 bits. A bit is 10,000 Satoshis. Simple. Elegant. No mouthful of metric jumbles and eyesores. No list of 8 geeky multi-syllabic names. What else should the acting base unit of Bitcoin be called other than a bit? I like the idea of having units for 1 BTC, 0.0001 BTC and 1 satoshi rather than using SI units, but "bit" seems too ambiguous. Too much like bitcoin. People will say stuff like, "Send me 1 bit coin," which is confusing. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BlueNote on May 12, 2013, 02:54:08 AM It also cleanly divides the 8 decimal places in two. actually, Gavin is almost cutting the number of decimal places in half with the newest release of the official client. I believe 0.00053 is now going to be the lowest possible amount that can be sent. If a bit is classified as a mBTC (0.001) that would work perfectly. That's a temporary change. Everyone knows that Bitcoin comes with 8 places. We'll have to divide them equally when we assign names to a range. The 4th place is the midpoint, and so the perfect place for the bit. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BlueNote on May 12, 2013, 03:06:12 AM A Bitcoin is 10,000 bits. A bit is 10,000 Satoshis. Simple. Elegant. No mouthful of metric jumbles and eyesores. No list of 8 geeky multi-syllabic names. What else should the acting base unit of Bitcoin be called other than a bit? I like the idea of having units for 1 BTC, 0.0001 BTC and 1 satoshi rather than using SI units, but "bit" seems too ambiguous. Too much like bitcoin. People will say stuff like, "Send me 1 bit coin," which is confusing. I don't see how it's confusing when the difference is a factor of 10,000. A bit sounds naturally like the sub-unit of Bitcoin. Hell, even if people took to calling them "coins" or "the bit coin" it would still work. You're not going to mistake a tiny unit for a large one in context. Besides, aren't you dying to hear, "That'll be 500 bits, Mac." when you buy a sandwich from a street vendor? Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BitBank on May 12, 2013, 04:02:46 AM Here's my one reservation I have with designating bit as 0.0001 instead of 0.001...
familiarity. people (at least in the United States) aren't used to paying a few thousand units of a currency for small purchases. for instance, lunch at Panera bread would cost about 1,000 bits. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: bitbadger on May 12, 2013, 09:32:16 AM Here's my one reservation I have with designating bit as 0.0001 instead of 0.001... At present it would cost 1000 Bits, but if Bitcoin appreciates in future as people expect, then the price will come down. familiarity. people (at least in the United States) aren't used to paying a few thousand units of a currency for small purchases. for instance, lunch at Panera bread would cost about 1,000 bits. If and when Bitcoin appreciates by 1000% the lunch bread will cost just 100 Bits. 10,000% appreciation and it will cost 10 Bits. Alternatively the denomination could be set to 1000 BIT = 1 BTC rather than 10,000. That way the item will cost 100 Bit straight away and falling to 10 or 1 Bit after the same value appreciation in the future. That may be a better denomination. You could also have 100 Bitcents in 1 BIT. There could be a problem using 1000 or 10 000 as the multiple. Currencies usually use multiples of 100, so this could be a source of confusion. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Inedible on May 12, 2013, 02:20:16 PM Why the fascination to deviate from a working standard?
Do we WANT Bitcoin to have unusual units? Are we looking for unusual units for vanity reasons? It'll be a bit like when we ended up with kilobyte/kibibyte, megabyte/mibibyte. Maybe we should have Bitcoin in base 2 too? If you deviate from the standard, it's going to make it much harder for everyone to use/integrate. Edited: megabite/megabyte? Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Stephen Gornick on May 12, 2013, 04:00:18 PM Maybe we should have Bitcoin in base 2 too? Like this? - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tonal_Bitcoin Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BitshireHashaway on May 12, 2013, 09:33:29 PM How about... Bitcoin ? Using names other than Bitcoin - Andresen, Millibit, Satoshi etc will just confuse people. Instead, redenominate the Bitcoin as 0.0001 BTC and rename the present Bitcoin a Satoshi. So you will have 1.0 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 Satoshi. 0.0001 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 (new) Bitcoin Yeah, that won't confuse people, I'm sure... ;D +1 ;D Definitely won't confuse people right? Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: saudibull on May 12, 2013, 10:14:08 PM The more BTC is implemented into the real world, I think we will see fraction terms such as these, lets say BTC had a value over 1k$, peopel are going to be trading and buying in fractions, there will be names..
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: rafsoaken on May 13, 2013, 02:42:33 PM Cross post from other thread:
I definitely think new names would reduce the chance of confounding denominations, as well as make handling smaller amounts of BTC much simpler. Additionally those new names should not have the same sound to them, as that also facilitates confusion when two parties negotiate over price or when you send funds. Third, in this stage of bitcoin, it seems futile to me to try press names into a scheme mirroring the Dollar-Cents relationship, because we have no idea where the valuation of bitcoin will end up in 1, 2, 5 years from now. It might make more sense to use first names of people that heavily contributed to the bitcoin ecosystem (as in 1 Satoshi), in steps of 1000 as that is the scheme every SI unit generally follows. For all practical purposes the "cent" denominations can be added to the main denomination like so: My official proposal: 1 Bitcoin, == 100 Bitcoincent (or 1 Bitcent), 1 Bitcoin, == 1000 Gavin (or Gav for short) 1 Bitcoin, == 1000 00 Gavincent (or Gavcent) 1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 Finney (or Fin for short) 1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 00 Finneycent (=Fincent, or Satoshi) Pairs: Bitcoin/Bitcoincent, Gavin/Gavincent, Finney/Finneycents(Satoshis) Advantage of that scheme is, that whatever the current valuation of bitcoin, you can always use bitcoin in the familiar way you handle the Dollar/cents pair. So eg use Bitcoin/Bitcents for denominations of Bitcoin < 100$, Gavin/Gavincents for denominations of Bitcoin at 100$ and above, and later at maybe around 10k USD use Finneys/Finneycents(Satoshis). Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: ScaryHash on May 13, 2013, 03:42:02 PM .1 BTC= decibit
.01 BTC = centibit .001 BTC = miliBit .0001 BTC = squaredcentibit (.01 * .01). Simple Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: R2D221 on May 13, 2013, 04:06:46 PM Cross post from other thread: Why Finney and not Hal? Gavin and Satoshi are first names, but Finney is a last name. I think if we are going to use names, we should use them consistently.I definitely think new names would reduce the chance of confounding denominations, as well as make handling smaller amounts of BTC much simpler. Additionally those new names should not have the same sound to them, as that also facilitates confusion when two parties negotiate over price or when you send funds. Third, in this stage of bitcoin, it seems futile to me to try press names into a scheme mirroring the Dollar-Cents relationship, because we have no idea where the valuation of bitcoin will end up in 1, 2, 5 years from now. It might make more sense to use first names of people that heavily contributed to the bitcoin ecosystem (as in 1 Satoshi), in steps of 1000 as that is the scheme every SI unit generally follows. For all practical purposes the "cent" denominations can be added to the main denomination like so: My official proposal: 1 Bitcoin, == 100 Bitcoincent (or 1 Bitcent), 1 Bitcoin, == 1000 Gavin (or Gav for short) 1 Bitcoin, == 1000 00 Gavincent (or Gavcent) 1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 Finney (or Fin for short) 1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 00 Finneycent (=Fincent, or Satoshi) Pairs: Bitcoin/Bitcoincent, Gavin/Gavincent, Finney/Finneycents(Satoshis) Advantage of that scheme is, that whatever the current valuation of bitcoin, you can always use bitcoin in the familiar way you handle the Dollar/cents pair. So eg use Bitcoin/Bitcents for denominations of Bitcoin < 100$, Gavin/Gavincents for denominations of Bitcoin at 100$ and above, and later at maybe around 10k USD use Finneys/Finneycents(Satoshis). Your system has units with 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 zeros. Why not 2, 4, 6, 8? This would be much simpler and easier to understand. Finally, you say it's your “official proposal”. What makes this official, compared to the other proposals in this forum? Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: R2D221 on May 13, 2013, 04:09:16 PM .1 BTC= decibit SI doesn't have name for all positions. Just for 1000^n, and the exceptions of deci/deca and centi/hecto..01 BTC = centibit .001 BTC = miliBit .0001 BTC = squaredcentibit (.01 * .01). Simple Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: TimJBenham on May 13, 2013, 04:25:05 PM I call 0.0001 BTC a "virtue". The term arose by misunderstanding on reddit.
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: yona on May 13, 2013, 06:02:07 PM i like bit or mid for the 0.0001btc
it sounds good and short enough to work prefix like bitcent/midcent or kilobit/kilomid Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: rafsoaken on May 13, 2013, 07:06:06 PM Cross post from other thread: Why Finney and not Hal? Gavin and Satoshi are first names, but Finney is a last name. I think if we are going to use names, we should use them consistently.I definitely think new names would reduce the chance of confounding denominations, as well as make handling smaller amounts of BTC much simpler. Additionally those new names should not have the same sound to them, as that also facilitates confusion when two parties negotiate over price or when you send funds. Third, in this stage of bitcoin, it seems futile to me to try press names into a scheme mirroring the Dollar-Cents relationship, because we have no idea where the valuation of bitcoin will end up in 1, 2, 5 years from now. It might make more sense to use first names of people that heavily contributed to the bitcoin ecosystem (as in 1 Satoshi), in steps of 1000 as that is the scheme every SI unit generally follows. For all practical purposes the "cent" denominations can be added to the main denomination like so: My official proposal: 1 Bitcoin, == 100 Bitcoincent (or 1 Bitcent), 1 Bitcoin, == 1000 Gavin (or Gav for short) 1 Bitcoin, == 1000 00 Gavincent (or Gavcent) 1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 Finney (or Fin for short) 1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 00 Finneycent (=Fincent, or Satoshi) Pairs: Bitcoin/Bitcoincent, Gavin/Gavincent, Finney/Finneycents(Satoshis) Advantage of that scheme is, that whatever the current valuation of bitcoin, you can always use bitcoin in the familiar way you handle the Dollar/cents pair. So eg use Bitcoin/Bitcents for denominations of Bitcoin < 100$, Gavin/Gavincents for denominations of Bitcoin at 100$ and above, and later at maybe around 10k USD use Finneys/Finneycents(Satoshis). Your system has units with 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 zeros. Why not 2, 4, 6, 8? This would be much simpler and easier to understand. Finally, you say it's your “official proposal”. What makes this official, compared to the other proposals in this forum? 1) I went with Finney because I like the two syllable sound of it. Consistently using first names would be nicer, I agree with you there. We cound make that a Hal 2) The denominations come naturally when you descend down in steps of 10^3, name the units and add a cent denomination. Ie: 1 Bitcoin 1 Gavin (1/1000 Bitcoin) 1 Finney (1/1000 Gavin) (or a Hal) Very clear and distinct for my feeling. Now to add some ease in handling these units, you add cents to each of them: 1 Bitcent (1/100 Bitcoin) 1 Gavincent (1/100 Gavin), 1 Finneycent (1/100 Finney), or also called Satoshi That would make it nicely fit our familiarity with fiat denominations at whatever bitcoins trading range is atm. 3) Official means "my official" proposal, for what it's worth :) Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BitBank on May 13, 2013, 08:11:33 PM Naming denominations after people is the most asinine idea I've ever heard. It's almost like you guys WANT bitcoin to bask in obscurity.
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: rafsoaken on May 13, 2013, 08:21:23 PM Naming denominations after people is the most asinine idea I've ever heard. It's almost like you guys WANT bitcoin to bask in obscurity. So calling it 10 Nanobitcoins instead of 1 Satoshi is a better idea? Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: WilderedB on May 13, 2013, 08:25:24 PM I agree with bitbank.
Using names is plain silly. We need something that the public can understand and feel comfortable using, not some World of Warcraft style.... guild or something. For my own suggestion: Centibit Millibit Microbit Nanobit Satoshi - only acceptable as it's already in use and being the smallest it's easy to remember. Sez you? Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: BTCLuke on May 13, 2013, 08:40:43 PM I believe a name will eventually appear out of the blue and just click. We shouldn't be looking for one. I bet there wasn't any meeting to decide the name for nickels or dimes. Thank you... These things just stick out of popular usage, which never, ever can be dictated. So far I've seen the following trends stick out in popular usage: 0.1 = one bitdime 0.05 = one bitnickle 0.01 = one bitcent (or bitpenny) 0.0001 = one millibitcoin 0.00000001 = one satoshi Excepting for the last two (Which were introduced by the head coders) these have something important in common that all languages have in common: An existing, familiar concept. (Pennies look like 0.01 to the layman) What does 0.000001 look like to the layman? That's what's going to catch on. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Inedible on May 13, 2013, 08:48:56 PM I think too many people are coming from an Anglo-centric viewpoint.
To me, those suggesting anything but SI units might as well be advocating Imperial units. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Blueberry408 on May 14, 2013, 03:14:58 AM Ok we call it a litecoin.
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Walter Rothbard on May 14, 2013, 05:12:41 AM I privately call it a "bitmilray."
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Ekaros on May 14, 2013, 11:10:56 AM hemicro coin ;D
Hehto-micro bitcoin for 0.000 100 deka-micro bitcoin or demicro for 0.000 010 Also for: hehto-milli bitcoin 0.100 hemill deka-milli bitcoin 0.010 demill And then: hehto-nano 0.000 000 100 hena deka-nano 0.000 000 010 dena Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: marhjan on May 14, 2013, 04:50:27 PM 0.0001 BTC Lets call it 10,000 Satoshis that's exactly what it is 10,000sat or 10ksat Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: omgitsmehehe on May 14, 2013, 05:09:26 PM titbit
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: molecular on May 14, 2013, 05:24:21 PM Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: molecular on May 14, 2013, 05:25:09 PM Yes. Oops didn't notice the extra zero. Yeah there is no reason to name the 0.0001. I agree. And I suggest to call the millibit (mBTC) just "bit". Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: molecular on May 14, 2013, 05:26:31 PM I agree. This is far too urgent to put off until people come up with their own slang terms, we must decide this now, once and for all. It is also a matter too important to let languish in any of the hundred other threads, we should each make one new thread about it. Exactly. We should also establish a central authority who prosecutes anyone using anything but the official nomenclature. Use weapons to enforce it. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: molecular on May 14, 2013, 05:27:28 PM Maybe we should have Bitcoin in base 2 too? Like this? - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tonal_Bitcoin was it you in 2011 propangandizing on #bitcoin-dev to use it? It would've killed bitcoin in it's roots. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Walter Rothbard on May 14, 2013, 05:30:26 PM I agree. This is far too urgent to put off until people come up with their own slang terms, we must decide this now, once and for all. It is also a matter too important to let languish in any of the hundred other threads, we should each make one new thread about it. Exactly. We should also establish a central authority who prosecutes anyone using anything but the official nomenclature. Use weapons to enforce it. No, we should implement this in code. Anybody using unofficial units will have demurrage taken from their Bitcoin addresses with each block generation. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: molecular on May 14, 2013, 05:33:04 PM Naming denominations after people is the most asinine idea I've ever heard. It's almost like you guys WANT bitcoin to bask in obscurity. Yeah, it's definitely better to use names of landscape features, like "ridge", "hill", "cave", "mountain", or "tal", which is the origin of the name "dollar". Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: R2D221 on May 14, 2013, 07:59:18 PM Naming denominations after people is the most asinine idea I've ever heard. It's almost like you guys WANT bitcoin to bask in obscurity. Yeah, it's definitely better to use names of landscape features, like "ridge", "hill", "cave", "mountain", or "tal", which is the origin of the name "dollar". Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: molecular on May 15, 2013, 04:12:32 AM Naming denominations after people is the most asinine idea I've ever heard. It's almost like you guys WANT bitcoin to bask in obscurity. Yeah, it's definitely better to use names of landscape features, like "ridge", "hill", "cave", "mountain", or "tal", which is the origin of the name "dollar". Since weight was used because the monetary value was based on precious metal, maybe we should use names quantifying amounts of data like, "bit", "byte", "nibble". 1 BTC = 1000 bits 1 bit = 1000 nibbles 1 nibble = 100 satoshis 1 BTC = 1 bitcoin 1000 BTC = 1 kilobit 1000000 BTC = 1 megabit as someone said before: some name will emerge from general use rather than us making one up Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: freedomno1 on May 15, 2013, 05:44:27 AM Bob since we need a catchy nickname ;D
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: MoonShadow on May 15, 2013, 05:49:52 AM The name for 0.0001 BTC has been largely decided long ago, it's either a Millibit or a Gavin. The smallest unit is a satoshi after the creator, and this one is after the second most important figure in the creation and development of Bitcoin; Gavin Andreson. Much like how the most important presidents, according to someone, are presented on the currency of the US, the most important being the smallest denomination.
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: dserrano5 on May 15, 2013, 07:31:57 AM The name for 0.0001 BTC has been largely decided long ago [citation needed] Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Inedible on May 15, 2013, 07:35:25 AM The name for 0.0001 BTC has been largely decided long ago, it's either a Millibit or a Gavin. The smallest unit is a satoshi after the creator, and this one is after the second most important figure in the creation and development of Bitcoin; Gavin Andreson. Much like how the most important presidents, according to someone, are presented on the currency of the US, the most important being the smallest denomination. Surely that's a tenth of a milibitcoin? Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: bitbadger on May 15, 2013, 10:36:57 AM A Bitcoin is 10,000 bits. A bit is 10,000 Satoshis. Simple. Elegant. No mouthful of metric jumbles and eyesores. No list of 8 geeky multi-syllabic names. What else should the acting base unit of Bitcoin be called other than a bit? I like the idea of having units for 1 BTC, 0.0001 BTC and 1 satoshi rather than using SI units, but "bit" seems too ambiguous. Too much like bitcoin. People will say stuff like, "Send me 1 bit coin," which is confusing. seller says "how do you want to pay?" buyer replies: "with Bitcoin". seller: "ok, then that'll be 500 Bits" there's no ambiguity because you've already established the transaction is Bitcoin. If the price was 1 Bitcoin, then you would say, "pay me in Bitcoin, the price is 1 Bitcoin (meaning, 1 BTC or 10,000 Bits or BIT). It's a similar thing with the Dollar and other fiat. You can say pay me in Dollar. Price is eg 35 Dollars. "Pay me in Dollar" does not mean "pay me one Dollar". No ambiguity. I don't think "Satoshi" should be used at all. It's too long for one thing - 3 syllables. Plus it sounds kind of like a geeky in-joke. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: beckspace on May 15, 2013, 01:32:10 PM Anyway, I'd say 0.0001 BTC is called "a hundred microBit" or "point one milliBit". In writing: 0.1 mBTC or 100 uBTC Agreed. 0.1 milliBTC or milliBit / 0.1 mBTC / 0.1 millies or 100 microBTC or microBit / 100 uBTC / 100 mickeys Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: R2D221 on May 15, 2013, 05:59:34 PM The name for 0.0001 BTC has been largely decided long ago, it's either a Millibit or a Gavin. When was that decided? I've only heard it in threads discussing what names should denominations have, but not on actual usage.Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: molecular on May 15, 2013, 06:31:24 PM The name for 0.0001 BTC has been largely decided long ago, it's either a Millibit or a Gavin. You fell in the same trap DeathAndTaxes fell in: millicoin informally. If I was pricing something in print I would just use mBTC. Wouldn't millicoin imply 0.001 BTC? (one less decimal place) Yes. Oops didn't notice the extra zero. (thinking 0.0001 = 0.001) DeathAndTaxes next move was to assert: Yeah there is no reason to name the 0.0001. I think it's quite possible you'll do the same. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Stampbit on May 15, 2013, 06:44:01 PM What about an itsybit?
Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: MoonShadow on May 15, 2013, 08:40:55 PM I don't think "Satoshi" should be used at all. It's too long for one thing - 3 syllables. Plus it sounds kind of like a geeky in-joke. 1) It's already in use in exactly this fashion.... 2) It's not too long as a spoken word.... 3) It IS a geeky in joke. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: MoonShadow on May 15, 2013, 08:44:07 PM I think it's quite possible you'll do the same. Indeed. There is no real need to name that unit. Title: Re: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC? Post by: Peter Lambert on May 16, 2013, 01:59:12 PM I think it's quite possible you'll do the same. Indeed. There is no real need to name that unit. Just like there is no real reason to name 10000 btc, which is about halfway between 1 and 21000000; people do not write 2100 0000 total bitcoins, they write 21 000 000 total bitcoins. |
