Bitcoin Forum

satoshis seriously!

people are already using satoshis, lets go straight to that, its pretty common now, Doge User base is completely familiar with satoshis as is all of the alts. That's massive.

Satoshis now, why?

• it differentiates
• cements the BTC history in,
• set BTC as the bar, that is already defacto.
• works nicely to 1satoshi = 1 cent
• feels good to own 10K satoshi
• will put pressure to make x-actions costs cheaper, improving comparative advantage
• end of ubtc and mbtc threads
• already so common people say sats
• moon 2, etc
• adoption hyperspace
• ?.?.?.?.?
• Profit

saves this argument at mbit , ubit etc. which will just cycle back as mbit become to big

Agreed with all points.  No brainer.

Most of the faucet payments are now counted in Satoshi.

yes and time to drop the mining fees right down

I prefer bits. 1 BTC = 1,000,000 bits

People are used to having 2 decimals and with bits, that will fit perfectly since bits leaves 2 decimals, e.g 128.24 bits

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1rmto3/its_bits/

Ok , I don't have anything against using satoshis, i support this idea.

Concurred.  I'm sticking with microbits (or bits for short).  If a satoshi is loosely the equivalent of a penny, then it needs a larger denomination to go with it.

Agreed with all points except profit. are they profitable? I doubt

I intend to do what comes naturally, which is to use both 'BTC' and 'satoshis.' When I want to convey the idea of 0.3 BTC, I say 0.3 BTC. Someday, I'll want to convey the idea of 0.00000300 BTC, and I'll say 300 satoshis.

Exactly. People are used to doing it that way, and it fits in nicely with programs/systems designed to handle currency.

According to wiki:
A satoshi is currently the smallest unit of the Bitcoin currency (1/100,000,000 BTC or 0.00000001 BTC)
10000 x 0.00000001 = 0.0001 BTC
Really? :P

I do not think you understand a thread :P How come it fits nicely with programs/systems designed to handle currency??



I think scaling this way:


is not bad at all :P :)

i think that a satoshi is too small because if you go buy a home its going to be 1000,0000,000 satosi home lol and so on. i think mbtc is closer to the dollar

When you use for example "cents" or "pennies".

Do you say you paid 50000000 cents/pennies for a house? ;P

I will say I paid 300BTC.   ;D

Because they are designed to handle decimal currencies (with 100 subunits). It would be stupid not to follow an already established way of doing things.

bits and Satoshis could end up the most popular.
ubtc and mbtc never looked good to me at all; I'm finally getting used to mbtc, but still do not like it compared to BTC or Satoshi.

For those who don't get the significance, this is important for legacy software which often has restricted input size.  For example we use "bits" (uBTC) internally for financial accounting.   All Bitcoin ledgers are in uBTC.   Quickbooks (and lots of other software) assumes that exchange rates will fall into a specific range and thus only has so many significant digits).

1 uBTC = 0.00045 USD
1 USD = 2222.22 BTC

Using satoshi wasn't (haven't rechecked lately) possible because the exchange rate fields didn't have sufficient digits
1 sat = 0.0000045 USD
1 USD = 222222.2222

This was even more of a problem previously when the exchange rate was lower.  Even if sat:USD exchange rate fits currently in your accounting software be sure to check what a 75% (or 90%) exchange rate drop would do.  It would be a nightmare to have an accounting system in place which simply fails if the exchange rate drops below $XXX USD per BTC.

1 satoshi is way less than 1 cent. Bitcoin would looks like doge if we do that at this point

nice, but its just that to many decinals makes it difficult...

Actually it's way too late for this discussion to matter much.
BTC is out in the wild and people will use the units they prefer.
The time for major changes has long passed.

Perhaps we can use "satoshis" and quote prices (or do accounting) in "millions of satoshis" or "thousands of satoshis."  We can use Msats or ksats for writing, but in spoken language people will say 2.5 million satoshis, or 35 thousand satoshis.  They won't say "megasats" or "kilosats."  For example, someone on CNBC would say "Bitcoin is currently trading at $4.51 per million satoshis."  This has the added benefit of promoting public education about the resolution of our currency.

I think the problem with the milli- and micro- prefixes are not the fact that they are SI prefixes, but the fact that division is harder than multiplication.  If someone says 100 uBTC, I immediately say "hmm, there's 1,000,000 uBTC in a BTC and he wants 100 of those, so he wants 1 / 10,000 of a bitcoin" and my brain sort of hurts.  But if someone says 2 million satoshis, then my brain doesn't seem to do any math. I just "get it."

I think most peoples brains work like this (multiplication by powers of 10 is obvious but division requires thought).  

So again, I prefer bitcoins and satoshis.    

My 0.02 bits (or 2 Satoshis) is that we go with Bits.

It skips the pain of future transitions under the current protocol.

By using Bits now there wont need to be another major transition until it becomes necessary to change the protocol and all related software.

How much time this gives us is unknown, but I'd say at least a year ;)

I tend to like the idea of going with "bits" the embedded two decimal points gives it ample amounts of familiarity and aligns it with a lot of accounting practices since most currencies are divisible to the hundredths place.

Although, satoshi just has that nice kind of ring to me.

[Stealing from a certain movie, "1 billion satoshi" sounds better than "1 billion bits," at least to me that is. Plus it's significantly easier to obtain the former rather than the later. Or maybe I'm just being silly. Hehe.]

Satoshis are already established. Most altcoins are measured in thousands or tens of thousands of satoshis. The unit is useful up to anything in the hundreds of thousands of satoshis.

All you need is:

.00000001 BTC = 1 satoshi
.0000001 BTC = 10 satoshis
.000001 BTC = 100 satoshis
.00001 BTC = 1000 satoshis
.0001 BTC = 10000 satoshis
.001 BTC = 100000 satoshis
.01 BTC =       0.01 BTC
.1 BTC =         0.1   BTC
1 BTC =          1      BTC

That makes 500.000 satoshis please. Thanks.

I agree with satoshi as the defacto standard, but maybe under a different name? Would be better for more widespread adoption.

What is wrong with Satoshi?

Satoshi will be ok when price increases a lot. Maybe $100,000.

mBTC is ok for now.

We are already using different units like btc, mBTC, ubtc and satoshi.
There is no need to have just one unit.

jeez  ::)

this doesn't solve the problem of dust transactions at all; and just how are you including transaction fees if you send 100 satoshis??!!

NO

Only way forward is to stick with the current divisibility (10^8 satoshis per bitcoin) but do a SPLIT via a fork

1:100 would be perfect.

All the name change "solutions" are a joke.

when thinking of the usefulness of mBTC right now.. NO ONE can just transmit 0.01 mBTC due to the fee and satoshi dust limits. thus right now mBTC is still not ready to be used for anything meaningful, apart from looking like you have alot of coins/value

its much the same (well the polar opposite due to the inflation/deflation differences) as the dollar offering a $1000 bank note. although it looks like you have more value by holding one of these in your hand. you cant really use it to buy a pack of chewing gum at the local 7-11.

and as i said before, pricing everything in mBTC will make things like fee's look larger, cause things like change for 1c to become less helpful. so until the fee's which mining pools want to charge are atleast 2 decimals below mBTC. then mBTC is useless for actual use, and only useful for wealth display.

although i do think that spending years arguing about BTC versus mBTC is redundant as by the time people get use to mBTC, the value of it all will rise so high it will just spark another debate about changing from mBTC versus Sat's

one day in the future we will all be measuring in satoshi's much like the Zimbabwe dollar, so i find the mBTC arguments as futile for the reasons given above. same goes for uBTC.

as for anyone thinking that any change in measurement requires a blockchain fork.. you have it wrong. the blockchain protocol already measures in SATOSHI's... not bitcoin, not mBTC, not uBTC... but satoshi's... it is only the front end, web php code that converts it up. so its easy to move to other measurements without changing the protocol

Mbtc is a viable plan, satoshis, now... NOPE

Agree.

Satoshis or Satoshis (0.00000001 XBT) sounds good to the people here but to the laymen on the street, they'll be scared stiff. I prefer to use the word "bits" too.

yes, Bits sounds easier to explain to the normal laymen.

Then the dust threshold and anti DOS fees would be raised 100x.  They aren't arbitrary.  They serve a purpose and if you redenominated then the min fee to relay and the dust threshold (which is ~56% of min fee to relay) would rise correspondingly.

Still the dust threshold is now (v0.9) 560 satoshis which is worth 1/4 of a US cent.  There is no reason for the dust threshold to be lower (unless the value goes much higher at which point the it will be lowered again).

I dont think we are ready for such big numbers. Imagine sending 20000000000 satoshis :o

Satoshis are too small to be used in everyday currently but in the future hopefully :)

never really linked mBTC bits is more intersting and more natural.

Exactly.  An "excessive" number of zeros on the right is just as easy to make mistakes as an excessive number of zeros on the left.

Quick (without tediously counting zeros) was that 200000000000 sats, 2000000000 sats, or 20000000000 sats?

I was in favor of mBTC (or em bits) for a long time but "bits" as a colloquial for micro bitcoins could be useful.  Being 100 satoshis it reduces (somewhat) the excessive number of zeroes, provides two decimal places (useful for legacy financial applications) and shouldn't need to be changed outside of the most optimistic (and unrealistic) scenarios.

For example:
The dust limit is currently 5.6 bits.
The min fee to relay is being reduced from 100 bits to 10 bits.
You can currently get more than 2,200 bits to the dollar.
There are one million bits in a bitcoin.
I am selling this used GPU for 840,000 bits.

I think I am leaning this way too now.  "Bits" is a nice easy name.  We could still use SI prefixes when writing (e.g., 23 kbits) but people would say 23 thousand bits rather than 23 kilobits.  You can't really do that if you use the divisive SI prefixes like milli and micro.    

The price of bitcoin right now would be $0.46 per thousand bits.  

My only concern is that it does not make the resolution of bitcoin obvious like satoshis does.  But at least when people ask, the answer that there are 100 sub-units in each bit will seem natural.  

Bits is by far the best proposal for practical purposes.

1 bit is a hundred Satoshi
1 bitcoin is a million bits

Easy to remember, easy to use.

1 bit should be equivalent to a millibit perhaps?

Milibit should be adopted. Right now it's worth enough to mention mbtc.

so has anyone made a proposal on the main bitcoin github to have the next update include bits.. or are you just waffling on about it on a forum?