Bitcoin Forum

It's been quite a hot topic on crypto Twitter lately. With as far as I understand, for bitcoin to be seen as less "expensive" as it is, and to prevent people from being tricked and deceived into these so called "cheaper" coins like Ripplecoin, Litecoin, etc.

Also,

Regardless what your opinion is on this matter, I think it's a great topic for the forum. Feel free to express your opinions. Which side are you on, and why?

https://i.imgur.com/HvpKeWw.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/4uhHWqI.png
https://i.imgur.com/tkfGGdq.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/a876bFY.png


Adam Back's reasoning(Tweet source: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1335354258858905604):

Some conversations on Twitter you might be interested in:

• https://twitter.com/bradmillscan/status/1334970503568781314
• https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1335354258858905604
• https://twitter.com/thebitcoinrabbi/status/1335433428620206080
• https://twitter.com/notgrubles/status/1335442247614160896

Note: will be self-moderating this topic to somewhat prevent unhelpful replies.

I only know three ways bitcoin is usually represented which are 'bitcoin, millibitcoin and satoshi' but the most often representation is bitcoin. I think we do not need to bother about this, all we need to understand is to know how these three representations are related.

About the issue of seeing bitcoin expensive. Normally, I can buy as low as $10 worth of bitcoin, I can still calculated it in any of the three representations but I prefer using bitcoin because I am more used to it.

Traders and experts do not follow how big the price of bitcoin is, but follow to buy at low price and sell at higher price. If bitcoin gets to $30000 today, people will refer to when bitcoin is at $20000 to be when its price was low, that is just it.

Any representation is good, but to profit from bitcoin holding and trading is the most important.

Of course. But the problem is for the newbies who get affected by the so called "unit bias", whereas they're mostly going to be more lured into altcoins because they're "cheaper". I know they should be doing their due diligence, but still.

There will always be a cheaper shitcoin, even if we will go down to sats. We should not lower standards for someone who will sooner or later get rid of the money on the unsuccessful investments. Big price of bitcoin fits perfectly into present narrative that is being build around bitcoin and finally will create a paradigm that next bitcoin bubble will be created on - Bitcoin as 5% of well-balanced portfolio - Bitcoin as a safe haven for big institutions money, bitcoin as investment.

It is right that bitcoin price can be high for newbies. But, if bitcoin is represented in satoshi, that will take away the name of bitcoin, also having a prefix of m (mbtc) does not still make any good sense because some newbies can still even think it is part of the ethereum wrapped tokens like wbtc, rbtc and the likes. Representing it with bitcoin is the best. When it is bitcoin, its price had risen all the way from $0.03 to $19000, so I do not think this should be a problem. Bitcoin also gotten to all time high this year, altcoins like ether, ripple, litecoin and so on have far behind getting to their all time high which indicates bitcoin to be the point of attraction.

And come to think of it, newbies do not bother about price, they only prefer what is superior, the best and the one in vogue. Bitcoin is depicted as bitcoin while over 7500 other cryptocurrencies are known as altcoins, just because bitcoin has the marketcap that surpass all the whole altcoins. This indicate how bitcoin is so strong, and this is a reflection of the reasons why newbies still prefer to go for bitcoin.

In my opinion, I do not see this as an issue.

I like milibitcoins, because I'm very used to the SI, and having 1 mBTC ~ $19 makes it easier to calculate the amounts I typically think about in my head. If Bitcoin will be worth millions, than microbitcoins aka "bits" will be more convenient, though milibitcoins would still be useful when you'll deal with thousands of dollars of value in BTC.

I think now is still too early for sats and bits, they would result in too much zeroes in numbers for typical payment, and this can cause errors, especially if a website has poor user interface and doesn't properly separate digits to make them more clear.

I don't actually like the sats since I usually see it in fees and I don't think it is good with higher amounts I think I should go with either Bitcoin like 0.001 Bitcoins or maybe in mBTC (millibitcoin) since I'm familiar with it due to the implementation of that unit in sports betting casinos.

Sure. But is choosing a lower denomination really "lowering the standards"? I'm pretty sure pricing gold in grams instead of whole bars isn't really a bad thing.

Also, unit bias is just one thing. Another advantage would be that it's more natural to vocally say "1000 bits" or "100k sats" than saying "zero point zero zero one(0.001) bitcoin".

I believe that either Bitcoins or milliBitcoins [1 X 10⁻³] should be the fundamental denomination of Bitcoin, it represents Bitcoin with the appropriate prefix in an unambiguous manner. I do not understand why bits are introduced in the first place and I had difficulties trying to visualise it when the website I'm using calls for it.

In my opinion, trying to divide Bitcoins down to too many decimals is counterproductive because it results in much more confusion as someone who is new to Bitcoin. Realistically, I do not think it would ever reach a point whereby 1 satoshi or 1 bits is equal to $1 so using that as a unit is fairly confusing as well.

All and none.

No single unit should be enforced, both wallets and merchants must always have the option to easily convert between different units. For example when you want to purchase something worth $10 the merchant UI must show you the amount in bitcoin using the unit if your choice. For example you select bitcoin then it shows 0.00052500, you select satoshi it shows 52500 and so on. Same with your wallet.

100% agree. But the conversation is mostly with deciding what the default denomination would be(e.g. on Coinbase, on CoinMarketCap, etc) instead of the default BTC that we’re currently using; not necessarily the one and only denomination that should be used.

All the three dominations are used. I remember when I was still novice and using faucet and pay to click sites to collect bitcoin, the amount collected was represented in satoshi, mbtc and btc, also I have seen crypto betting site recently having campaign on Bitcointalk forum that represent bitcoin in mbtc. While also you can choose the denomination you prefer on some wallets. We can use what we wish among the three. On exchanges and on sites like coinmarketcap, the domination of bitcoin should be btc, nothing should alters that for people (newbies) not to confuse.

I have always stated that Satoshi is not suitable as a sub-unit of Bitcoin. In the distant future, if Bitcoin hits $1 million per coin, then Satoshi will be worth $0.01 and can be used as a subdivision of BTC. But right now, its value is just $0.0002, and using this small unit causes a lot of inconvenience. I would rather go for mBTC, although it's value is a bit higher for my liking.

I've never used bits. I used to interchange between BTC, mBTC and sats depending on the value of what I was dealing with, but now I predominantly only use BTC or sats. My personal "changeover" point is generally somewhere around 4 figures - so sats for values up to around 9,999 sats, and BTC for values of 0.0001 BTC and higher. That way I'm never dealing with too many leading zeroes.

Having said all that, in the tweet you linked to Adam Back makes some very solid points. I do like the bits/sats mirroring the dollar/cent system that everyone is familiar with. However, we are years (at least, if not decades) from this being useful. 1 bit is 2 cents. 1 satoshi is 0.02 cents. If and when bitcoin hits $1 million, then bits/sats becomes useful, but until such a time, it is still too small a denomination to be widely useful.

It's also going to be near impossible to reach consensus on this. Exchanges use BTC. Many gambling sites use mBTC and bits. Lightning uses sats. Merchants use whatever they like. All the different twitter opinions shows that whichever one you pick, there will be a sizeable proportion of people who argue you are wrong.

Well, every newbie or person who has just heard bitcoins price would definitely find it too expensive and OP is right people perhaps planning to look for an alternative which perhaps suits their financial capabilities. If I will be introduced to bitcoin today through a word of a friend I will really lose all my guts in investing in it for I need to shell out $20000 initially just to have 1 BTC not knowing that I can have it infractions. I think it is better to have it in a lower denomination and introduce it using such terms for a smaller amount in currency conversion. If I will be asked what term would be the best, -- I will suggest ^[mBTC] or ^{[millibitcoin]} in fact, it can still be shortened to ^[millibits] which I find easier to understand and be remembered.

For now satoshis would be hard to use for me.

I used to use whole bitcoins and mBTC when we were at 3000 USD per coin and I don't feel like at 20 those units became unusable or irrelevant in any way.

I'd ask those who say that we suddenly need to use smaller denominations why do they feel like they have to do it now? We used to be at 20 thousand before and people used BTC and mBTC. What's changed?

Maybe if we approach 100 thousand one day this conversation will have a point but I feel like it's still too early and if units of account were not a problem 2 months ago they shouldn't be a problem now.

I also like the idea of using both bits and millibits as that pretty much has covered. mBTC are of course the standard used by many casinos, and bits (b?) is what is used by bustadice. 1 bit is worth almost 2 cents, and a thousand of those equals one millibit, which is (close to) $20.

I'm afraid as the price continues to go up, it is likely to be called Mbits, simply for ease of use. In other words, I spent 1 Mbit vs the usual 0.0001 sats

or whatever I say now. (sigh...math is hard on the fly in my head) :(

I am 'unclear' on how to get the math to work on the fly in one's head. It has to happen

in some manner and people will have to get used to such on the fly, using Mbits or whatever.

How to ease this process or make it less convoluted than the already fast math done in my head on bitcoin worth vs USD worth at the time..is maybe un-doable.

I mean in the USA we can't grasp Metric..this is along similar lines of thought on the fly in your head on converting from full Bitcoin price to whatever you spent

and playing 'mental gymnastics' to figure out price vs full bitcoin price vs USD, etc. Yech, it may just stay in the current format, this doesn't seem all that better. :(

Brad

Not a good idea. "Millibit" would mean 1/1000th of a bit (see millimeter, milliliter, etc) when it's actually 1000 bits.

---

BTC and sat cover everything I ever need to do with bitcoins so all these made up units just waste my time.

BTC and mBTC are 2 units I use and I feel they are enough for me.

Too many zero figures can distort the process I imagine the difference of value of the transaction I make and the fee I use for it. If my budget is small, I choose mBTC. If my budget is not too small (0.01 BTC⁺) I choose BTC.

satoshi explained about it that how he decided to give bitcoin a smallest denomination (in satoshi as 1 millionth bitcoin).

The 21 Million Bitcoin Question (https://bitzuma.com/posts/the-21-million-bitcoin-question/)

I am already very comfortable with Bitcoin and Sats. And I guess those are the units which are also very popular among Bitcoin fans.

Although when it comes to amounts which are not so small as to be quantified using Sats and not too big either as to be quantified with a single or two decimals I am good with mBTC. It's more of a hassle to say one hundred thousand Sats or point zero zero one Bitcoin. So I would prefer one mBTC. That's to be spoken as m B T C rather than millibitcoin as it sounds too geeky to me.

People don't even have to know the meaning of mBTC. It'll just make things sound too complicated. It means more Birthdays To Come. ;D

It is all still considered to be gold, an ounce of gold or a gram of gold and anyone who gets confused can relate it to actual measurement metrics. This is quite different from using made up fractional equivalents which could be quite confusing for an average user especially when there are too much of them.

The idea has its merits and unit bias is an actual thing, as I've seen people choose to go for altcoins because they consider them cheaper than Bitcoin, and I'll have to explain how they can purchase fractions of it if they choose to. But for some reason some would rather have 1000 xcoin than 0.006 BTC, maybe cause they feel during a price increase the former could get them richer way quicker cause it's a significant number.

Maybe in the future when bitcoin atfains a very high fiat value new denominations would be absolutely necessary, but for now rotating between Bitcoin, mbtc and Satoshis seems to be working fine.

We could also say that the 'cents' denomination of money is also a "made up" fractional equivalent right? But yet it's heavily used. I think as long as a certain smaller denomination is adopted early on(I think right now is still really early), it will end up fine in the end. But yea, deciding on a consensus is going to be a problem.

I like Bits, but i think the bit should be 1/20,000 btc, so 1 bit = $0,95 & 0,75€

I agree and I also recognize the need for such fractional denominations. If a consensus could be reached on what should be the universally accepted fractions of Bitcoin that would be a step in the right direction.

However my reservation is with this fractional equivalents being used as a default ticker on coin tracking sites like CMC or coingecko. Bitcoin should remain the staple and only means of identification in my opinion, any other should function as a means of avoiding numerous leading zeros.

My preferred lower choice of  bitcoin denomination is bits, as a forex trader my broker adopted that denomination as a alternative source of trading thus allowing me to calculate my lot sizes and risk to be taken before taking any trade, while I used https://bitsusd.com/  to quickly glance through bits values in USD, e.g I used 525 bits equivalent to 10USD per trade, bits values has been very helpful in calculating my risk to reward ratio while trading based on amount of pips used as stop loss as well as numbers of pips to be taken as profits.

Well, someday IMHO, be it slang or something else. IF and or/when Bitcoin gets to say $100,000.00 per USD. Something undoubtedly will arise to the

occasion. Not sure what, but pretty sure something. Is there a term for 10th of a Bitcoin for example?  Just googled such. dBTC for example?

I know Litecoin back in the day folks use to say that Litecoin would be more or less pegged to Bitcoin and act like Silver (LTC) to Bitcoin's (BTC) gold.

Man, I'd really like that to go back to being so. I have a 'bit' of Litecoin and 1/10th would be just dandy. But that was the last serious talk of this

kinda thing way back in like 2015 or some such.

As you can tell from my previous post, MATH is not my greatest skill...nor definitions nor attempts at slang towards such. But it is gonna be damn

cumbersome in 10  years attempting to tell someone what I paid for my SpaceX ride and astronaut wings at $500,000.00 USD Bitcoin, don't ya know! :)

This however will be indeed the 'least' of my concerns in 10 years I hope by far, really, cumbersome is fine, I won't mind! :)

Brad

I honestly think that litecoin's "silver to bitcoin's gold" is one of the worst taglines I've seen that I'm really ashamed of myself for being convinced by it when I was first starting out lol. Litecoin's totally unnecessary besides to being a sort of Bitcoin testnet.

I was depressed I had mined 12,595 or so Litecoin on www.litecoinpool.org (http://www.litecoinpool.org) from like 2014 onward and not keeping them and

selling for Bitcoin and not at the peak price...I think I spent all of 2014 mining a shitload of them as the KNC Titan was pretty much ONLY big miner doing so
 
at like a $1.80 price or some such.

But the majority of them being xfered over that year and or year(s)  (with the tagline on bitcointalk.org along the lines of Never getting my ROI back on my f*cking KNC

Titan 8th grade science fair project...for crying out loud! and FU to KNC..or some such.

(I really, owe KNC an apology in hindsight..like a basket of fruit..that was  harsh!) :(

But recently I looked over time how I xfered over from LTC at stupid low LTC prices to BTC which luckily was also at stupid low and HODL'ing

thinking I'd screwed up but did the calculations and was like 10% difference.

Hell, I spent that 10% on dubious BTC tickers or dubious ASIC board fixes to Lightfoot on here at like 1/2 BTC lots or some such to cover that...so...because

even though LTC was low ..so was BTC so it all worked out before the BTC forks happened and displaced Litecoin.

So got lucky on timing and math with that.

So never really minded the slogan, UNTIL Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Bitcoin SV (BSV) and now Bitcoin Cash ABC (BCHA) ...which with 51% attack don't think it will matter

much. But I'm still frigging confused on WHY BSV is at least 2+ times the price of Litecoin! The mind boggles!

I guess terms here really don't matter with all the sh*tcoins and forks now and in the future and other mental math gymnastics on what something is worth, and not

to mention besides BTC price the good old fiat price like USD.

I hope to re-visit this thread in 10 years and laugh at how STILL a poor newbie I was compared to those future years!

Hopefully, on the Yacht with the future 'young' Trophy Girlfriend, I can show this post so she too can chuckle at my naiveness!

I have this 'deluded' unproven theory that for some reason I will get more attractive the more BTC I have/HODL...I know it makes no sense..but there

ya have it! :)

Brad

I still like using the main denomination but if i'll pick between the three then my next option would be millibits or mBTC since the casinos and wallets I use have these denominations by default. I think it's a good middle ground since we rarely use the other denominations overall or maybe that's just me. I have no hate for the other denominations though I enjoy using sats for fees and bits in some sites, mBTC is still my go to denomination.  

To my way of thinking, the question of which one denomination is best suitable for bitcoin can be correctly answered neither by Adam Back, developers, miners, exchanges, nor ordinary users. Only through interactions between voluntary participants on the free market for bitcoin can such denomination emerge. And it will be the correct answer because it will have been found most naturally. By trying to define the correct denomination artificially, Adam Back and others not only go against the market but also against the very principles of bitcoin.

Sure. But thankfully they aren't really enforcing anything despite their "authority"; but they're just merely voicing out their opinions, just like what every single one of us are doing in this very thread.

mBTC. Or simply still, use BTC and avoid confusion. I believe, never to take away the "Bitcoin brand" from Bitcoin by calling small denominations something else. Plus I know it's debatable, it's just a personal opinion/preference.

Too many unnecessary debates. Just keep it that way and let people decide which denomination they prefer. It would be unfair to set a certain standard for all bitcoin users. I'm already used to BTC or sats and I'm slowly getting accustomed to mBTC.

I'll still vote for BTC for now. I think that's too early to change the standard. I see it pretty close to a rebranding, which we don't need yet.
At some point later, when it will be much more expensive too, we can go for another new standard, maybe mBTC, maybe something else.
But then we'll all have to discuss based on the same unit. Because if some will discuss BTC, some mBTC, bits, sats and so on, newcomers will be completely lost.
So let's wait at least one more market cycle until we maybe can discuss this as a real issue.

IMHO it would be wiser to use the denomination in Satoshis because that's the real unit for bitcoin.
Why should we use microbitcoin or millibitcoin when Satoshi is the actual unit for bitcoin.
Besides that, imagine bitcoin reaching $100000, at that time we could buy 1000 Satoshis for $1 and that's how the denomination Satoshi will be more valuable.

I do understand you point. But, I feel it's better to use any denomination based on who you're talking to. Maybe your friends also call it bits. But in an offical situation, considering that not everyone may understand it, you may then see the need of calling bitcoin it's original name/denomibations.

Please explain what you mean by "real unit for bitcoin" and "the actual unit for bitcoin"? Because as far as I know "bitcoin" is the "real" unit for bitcoin; whereas every single one of these alternative denominations are just made up. There's just an ongoing topic for a smaller denomination for UX purposes.

If we are being pedantic, then actually satoshi is the real unit for bitcoin. At a protocol level everything is measured in satoshi. The denomination of "bitcoin", each being equal to 100,000,000 sats, is entirely used by humans to make things easier for us. Any time we transact in "bitcoin", the software converts it to satoshi.

You can see this most easily by decoding a raw transaction and seeing that the value of all your outputs is specified in satoshi.

It's confusing even for me today to use bits, millibits and all those other denominations. I think BTC is still the way to go and, as @o_e_l_e_o suggested, sats could be used for amounts under 10k sats. Bitcoin and Satoshis should be the most widely used ones, because otherwise it gets confusing. It already is quite confusing for newbies to understand the concept of Bitcoin and all that - we shouldn't make it worse by switching to another denomination now.

I have never used any denomination other than sats and BTC, and it's been going great for me. I have to admit that it is sometimes annoying that I have to count how many zeroes there are after the "." though, because 0.0005 BTC and 0.00005 BTC are obviously two different values. If we were to use sats instead, "50k sats" and "5k sats" would be way more clever.

I say 1% of bitcoin or half of percent of bitcoin etc. I think that if we will start to use other names like micro bitcoins, mili bitcoins etc. newbies will start to thing that there are different types of bicoin, they will then go to bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold etc.

Do you remember famous Roger Ver interview  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOjCEth6xI&ab_channel=incredibert) when he was screening "its bitcoin cash not be-cash, stop insulting me" to the interviewer just before rage quit? He did this because he build whole marketing around bitcoin cash in a way to be as close to BTC as possible. To not be thread like another altcoin. That's why it was so important for him to force people to use Bitcoin in his altcoin name.

That's why i think that true bitcoin should be named bitcoin by everyone who use it. If everyone will start to use, sats, bits than newbie will come around searching for bitcoin, he will find bitcoin cash first. Maybe that's the true motivation of this.

I've always naturally assumed that bits will eventually become prevalent, since those who are only familiar with fiat are accustomed to having two decimal places.  But, since there's always the potential to add more decimal places if a hardfork ever takes place, I suppose it's only sensible to wait and see what emerges naturally.