Bitcoin Forum

I think this is something that a lot of merchants are wondering. My site uses bits. I like that it allows for two decimal places if bitcoin go way up in value and will probably work well until we need to subdivide satoshi's further. What are your thoughts?

microbitcoins (or microbits, or mikes, or mickeys, or mics, or µbits, or µBTC, or µBitcoins, or you-bees, or youbits, or you-bee-tea-seas, or mu-bits, or mu-BTC, or mu-bitcoins, or bits, or whatever nickname you want to use) are a good choice. It's great that they allow two decimal places and that most of the digits are to the left of the decimal point where a separator such as a comma can be used to improve visual clarity.

I'm just a bit confused why people like the nickname "bits" for microbitcoins?

It seems confusing and misleading.  Bits?  Is that regular bits (Bitcoins), or millibits (millibitcoins), or microbits (microbitcoins)?

I say, stick with the a representation where 1 satoshi is 0.01, but use a nickname for microbitcoins that is less confusing and misleading than "bits".

Note:  I can't believe we're having this discussion yet again.  This has to be the 15th poll I've seen just on this site about this issue, and the 50th time I've seen discussions about it.  I'd think that by now people would realize that there is no official organization that can decree what the name will be.  Everyone is going to use whatever the heck name they want.  There will be some confusion for a while, and eventually popular nicknames will form organically just like they do with everything else in life.  There was no official organization that declared that dollars should be called "bucks", and yet we all understand when someone says, "that'll be 6 bucks".

EDIT: I'm wrong

a bit is 1/100,000 of a bitcoin so a 'bit' is 10ubit. This just makes the decision harder

You are mistaken.

A "bit" is 1/1,000,000 of a bitcoin.
A "microbitcoin" is 1/1,000,000 of a bitcoin.

They are two different nicknames for the exact same value.

0.1 = 1/10 of a bitcoin
0.01 = 1/100 of a bitcoin
0.001 = 1/1,000 of a bitcoin (also known as a millibitcoin, or 1,000 microbits, or 1,000 "bits")
0.0001 = 1/10,000 of a bitcoin
0.00001 = 1/100,000 of a bitcoin
0.000001 = 1/1,000,000 of a bitcoin (also known as a microbits, or "bits", or 100 satoshi)
0.0000001 = 1/10,000,000 of a bitcoin
0.00000001 = 1/100,000,000 of a bitcoin (also known as a satoshi, or 0.01 microbits, or 0.01 "bits")

So, 1 "bit" = 1 microbit.

a millibit = 1,000 "bits", or a kilo"bit"
Wait, a millibit = a kilo"bit"?
How is that not confusing?

Way too many polls for this. Just use whatever other people have been using, satoshi and such.

You are mistaken.

1 bit is 1/100,000,000 of a bitcoin, so a 'bit' is 10 nBTC.

I am not sure why this needs yet another thread.

Edit: I recently learned that Bitcoinj used to call that unit a "nano coin"... such an off-by-10 error makes me think less of the software.

Honestly I don't think there is a big issue about using the wrong/right terminology.  Most people who use BTC are familiar with the lingo.  Sure when BTC gets more used and more widely used then maybe there can be an "official" change in certain terms but it's not like the community needs to get together and "decide" or "vote" on changing terms etc.

Thanks for that, I always defined a bit as 100 satoshi's and erroneously thought btc having eight decimal places meant 1 satoshi was 1/10^8 or 1/10,000,000 making a bit 1/100,000.

Someday, there will be nicknames for fractional bitcoins. It is doubtful that the names that arise through consensus will be any of the names that have been championed and argued over so far.

I wasn't sure about 'bits' at first, as I felt that mBTC might be a better transition, and more in parity with the dollar.

But, I've changed my mind.  Jumping straight to bits now seems like a good idea.

It will be one transition.  The original QT client already supports it, but calls it uBTC (micro-bitcoins).

All the legacy accounting systems will work with bits because it has two places after the decimal point.  So any accounting system can then store all the way to the 'satoshi' level by using the standard two places to the right of the decimal.

It's pretty easy to remember that $1.00 is in the ballpark of 1500 bits, so a $3.00 coffee should be around 4500 bits instead of 0.004838.  This seems a little easier to me than making sure I have the right number of zeros after the decimal place so I'm not overpaying (or underpaying) by a factor of 10.   I have a pretty good head for numbers, but when I'm sending bitcoin that isn't coming back, I usually feel safer double-checking with a calculator before hitting send.   Moving to bits would solve this for me and make the mental math easier, so I would not feel the need to double-check with a calculator -- at least for amounts under $100.

It also solves the problem of 'unit bias'.  It's already a problem that potential new bitcoin users don't want to buy bitcoin either because they think they have to buy a 'whole' one, or because they are buying such a small fraction of one that it seems insignificant.  Mathematically it makes no difference, but psychologically it matters.  Warren Buffet doesn't split Berkshire Hathaway A shares because mathematically it doesn't matter and it doesn't add value, but most shares are split to keep them in a psychologically attainable $10 to $1000 range.  It's just more satisfying to own 100,000 bits rather than 0.1 bitcoin.   It also seems more generous to give someone 5000 bits bits to get them started, rather than 0.005 BTC.

CoinCPA will make an option to display bitcoin balances in bits.

Just my 33 bits ($0.02).  ;)

Tron

Well first of all there is no "mistaken".   You can call "a bi"t whatever you want and so can Danny and so can anyone else.  There is no international standards body to act as a body of trusted elders to lay down the definition by decree.  Still I have NEVER see anyone refer to 1E-8 BTC as a "bit".  Of all the possible subunits the only two which have almost universal consensus are "1 Bitcoin" (1BTC or 1E8 satoshis) and "1 satoshi" (1 discrete unit or 1E-8 BTC).


I think that it is self evident.  You assume everyone else believes 1E-8 BTC = "1 bit" while the reality is (I am guessing here) >99% of the population would disagree with the assessment.

I wasn't explicitly trying to say danny was mistaken, I was trying to say the 1bit= 1/100,000 of  BTC was mistaken. I was trying to echo danny's response to show that "bit" is not a universally agreed-upon standard.


Technically, satosies are represented by bits. The software uses integers.

I think we found a winner.

mBTC is here to stay. 1 BTC = 1000 mBTC. People remember and use what's simple e.g. KIS.

I would like to clarify my understanding of 'bits'.

0.000001 = 1/1,000,000 of a bitcoin (also known as a microbits, micro-bitcoin, or "bits", or 100 satoshi).

I agree with DannyHamiliton and earnabit's original view.

I also agree with DannyHamilton that it doesn't much matter what we call 1 millionth of a bitcoin as long as the terminology uniformly means the same thing worldwide.

There are two posts above that get it 'wrong' in my view.  It is critically important that everyone settles on the same definition of a bit.

So is the letter "A", this entire forum, all floating point numbers, and whole Bitcoins.  They all use more than one bit and hence are represented by bits of data.  Still I have never once heard anyone refer to 1E-8 BTC as "1 bit" until you just did.  Even if some people do it certainly wouldn't be a majority and thus saying Danny is "wrong" is kinda silly right?

I use satoshies to refer to the base-unit. 1 µBTC to refer to 1 millionth of a Bitcoin.

I think using "bits" to refer to any denomination of Bitcoin is silly myself.

1 BTC = 1.000 mBTC = 1.000.000 uBTC = 100.000.000 satoshis

satoshi seems the simplest to me. It would be easy if each decimal place had a name. for example 8 places after the decimal is a satoshi. 7 places after the decimal could be another name. Maybe once we learned the names it would be easier to understand and calculate on the fly.
 

Haven't we had this discussion already quite a lot of times? I'm quite puzzled though, what are SI units when it comes to bitcoin? Anyways, how heavy is a single bitcoin at normal atmospheric pressure and a temperature of 24 degrees celsius?  :D

How about this:

People use whatever they want to use. I don't use Satoshis, unless it's a Satoshi. I sometimes use Bits. Sometimes mBTC.

This is a minor issue and needlessly confuses a lot of people.  I've gone to just using satoshi for up to one bitcent.  It is simple, everyone knows what I am talking about and for whatever reason zeros to the left of the decimal place with separators are easier for people to grasp than zeros to the right.

I'm all for people using whatever they want, but often the bit, m, and µ just confuses people.

Good Luck!

From what i've gathered during my time here (1+ year) people just don't care to name bitcoin values beyond BTC and satoshi. Usually when there are like 2 or 3 0's (0.002 or 0.0002) they talk in terms of BTC, then when the amount of 0's become ridiculous they just say 2000 satoshi or what not. I have never seen anyone talking in terms of milibits in chats or whatever.

in england what we use for 100x the smallest denomination(penny) is:
quid
bin lid (cockney: bin lid~quid)
nicker
squid

but these are all local terms and social terms, the universal and international term is 'pound'

so although people will make up their own unique local favourite terms socially there still needs to be a universal term. and 'bit' seems to be the favourite for 100satoshi. yes there are a few nay sayers, so no need to push reply just to make yourselves known. this argument has gone on for 10 months now.. and its time you stop arguing about it and accept that many are saying yes to bit, or for you to invent  new term and start actually using it, rather then just saying no on a forum..

Your "bit" isn't any more "universal" or "international" than my "microbit".  They are both just popular nicknames, or as you call them "local terms and social terms".

because either some company (cough-bitpay-cough) or some hot headed users decided that they will ram "bits" down everybody's throats, but as numbers here are showing, only 37% are happy about it.

Well personally, I like bits for microbitcoins because I think it is easy to say, short,
and will catch on well in mainstream society...and because of unit bias , we want
a relatively small unit...plus the fact that there's 2 decimal places after it
normalizes it...not to mention it makes sense in terms of "a bit" meaning
just a small amount of something.

There are a lot of words that are short and easy to say.  Personally, I find that many of them are better choices than "bits".


I hope you're wrong about this, but I suspect you're probably right.  Time will tell.


This is a false argument.  It doesn't matter what nickname you use for microbitcoins, you'll still have "a relatively small unit" and "2 decimal places after it".  There is nothing intrinsic about the word "bits" that makes it any smaller of a unit or any different a number of decimals than any other nickname you might choose.


I disagree here, since a satoshi is a smaller amount.  "Bits" are 100 satoshi, that seems like more than "a small amount".

Well, I'd say its more of an opinion than a strong argument.

You said you didn't understand why people like it.
I'm telling you why I like it, and keep in mind the
reasons why people like stuff aren't always perfectly
logical.

I notice you gave a lot of options but didn't specify
your own personal preference.  If you DON'T
like bits, feel free to tell us what's a better
option and why you like it.

Clearly we should call 1 millionth of a bitcoin a "buck", because we all know it's gonna happen.

 I skip the "bits" and go BTC, mbtc (millibitcoin) and satoshi.

This is definitely easier to deal with for sure. jesus how will regular people ever get a handle on 8 decimal places, thats what I wanna know!

While I hadn't considered it in the past, I really I like this suggestion.  We can only hope you're right.

so in a conversation someon says can i hav a buck.. they would hand you a dollar or 100 satoshis???????????

buck is confusing when talking about finance.. plus its american.. so let me guess the brits will call it a quid, the chinese will call it a yen, and the russians will call it a ruble....

buck is for the fiat market. so leave it for the fiat market

i think your stuck in the mindset that micro-bit (2 separate words) will make people think when you say bit, then later someone says "micro-bit", that people will get confused that a microbit is smaller then a bit..

how about imagine microbit did not exist and we just used sats, bits, bitcoin, no micro's at all... case solved

a bit is not a whole bitcoin. whomever made up the word "microbit" has no concept.. of logic. its microbitcoin or microbtc so stop using the term microbit as it doesnt roll over the tongue and a bitcoin is not bit. so again there is no microbit.

if you want to describe a division of bitcoin use microbitcoin or microbtc not microbit. as i think that is where your getting stuck, due to the word microbit that is confusing the whole thing.

again
bit is not a whole bitcoin, there is no such thing as a microbit

Nah, "buck" will only be used for a microbit if bitcoin becomes so popular that it becomes the dominant currency used in the U.S.  People will stop using "buck" to refer to the U.S. dollar if the value of 1 USD drops low enough, just like they already stopped using "bit" to refer to 12.5 cents.  If you are concerned about confusion between a bitcoin "buck" and the U.S. currency "buck", then why aren't you concerned about confusion between a bitcoin "bit" and the U.S. currency "bit".  To paraphrase you, "so in a conversation someon says can i hav 2 bits.. they would hand you a quarter or 200 satoshis???????????"


There is no such thing as a "bit" (in terms of bitcoin values) either.  They are both just nicknames for the exact same value.

Sorry, saying buck just doesn't work with me. It would have to be Quid but then that just stirs up another pot of shit stew lol.

This will naturally evolve over time.  We can't force it.  So far it looks like general consensus will gravitate towards bit, denominated as 1/1,000,000th of a bitcoin.  Coinbase has recently given users a choice to denominate their accounts in bits.

If you really want to enact change, start using the term bit(s) in everything you say and write.  Whether speaking person to person or commenting on here, reddit, yahoo news, or any other platform, reference price in terms of bits instead of bitcoins, especially when others in the conversation are referencing bitcoins.  For example, when someone asks you what the price of bitcoin is, say "The current price is 0.0625 cents per bit".  This will seem a bit awkward at first and people may look at you funny, but eventually it will catch on and become more natural to reference bits instead of bitcoin and other people will follow suit.

It'll be a challenge for sure... besides i think the "satoshi" name is quite friendly :)

I don't think skipping the 1µBTC denomination is a good idea. I just prefer  "mikes" as the short-form.

"Mills" are already used as a short-form for 1/1000th of a currency unit. Such units are not seem much outside of property tax rates though.

How about 4 denominations, each with its own Unicode character? Formal names vs colloquial names need some work...here's a vague scheme (with approximated glyphs)

B⃦*,BITCOIN SIGN, value: 1 bitcoin
₥ BITCOIN MILLIBITCOIN SIGN, value: 0.001 bitcoins
ƀ BITCOIN BIT SIGN, value 0.001 millibitcoins
s̸ or s⃫, BITCOIN BITCENT SIGN, value 0.01 bits

B⃦*(similar to ฿ with two vertical bars for those with old browsers)

I was thinking along exactly the same lines. Altcoin traders think in terms of satoshis, so I'm surprised that option was not more popular. Right now 1/1000 of a bitcoin may be a convenient unit of measure for "normal" (common) transactions, but if BTC goes mainstream and the price shoots up in accordance with demand, sticking with satoshis for pricing most items will make a lot more sense.

Bits sounds more appealing at current price. In a few orders of magnitude more we should switch another 3 decimals under and add more decimal positions to the satoshis.

All the major exchanges like BTC-e, Mintpal and Cryptsy already use Satoshi.

A simple dive into the Alt coin section of this site shows that Satoshi is already the unofficial standard. 

I've decided!  It is simple if you just explain in logical terms and Satoshi is the best way to go about it all the other terms are confusing.  Just go up in multiples of 10 with a chart stating how much the amount is in Satoshi.  After trying to understand the different ideas I'm a firm believer this is the simplest easiest way and other ways are just confusing especially to a newer user..

.00000001 = 1 Satoshi
.00000010 = 10 Satoshi

I think some  cultures will chose to use milliBits and other bits. With a bit having essentially zero value now, it will be a while before they are likely to be used (in single units) economically. But, it doesn't hurt to prepare. I don't think a Satoshi will be an economically useful unit in my lifetime (ie, >1¢). Satoshi's will be useful for non-economic tasks (like trading large volumes of altcoins values in pennies), but even the poorest of the poor wouldn't use any currency unit of so little value.

The advantage to bits is that the two decimal places following  a bit gives precision down to the Satoshi. Lots of cultures use 2 or 3 decimal places after their major currency unit. Not culture uses 5 or more (some international banking currency units use 4 decimal places).

At any rate, I think we should have unique unicode symbols for 4 denominations such that they don't casefold (eg, a lowercase Ƀ is ƀ...they both can't be used as symbols like $ and ¢...otherwise a sticky caps lock key could cost a fortune!)

Satoshi is a de-facto standard. You can't deny that.

https://cdn.mediacru.sh/U7ePcDNuPwls.png

The only units that emerged naturally are Bitcoin and Satoshi. Adding other units only leads to confusion.

There's no problem to use Satoshi for all small denominations. If you want to express thousands of Satoshis in short form, just add a "k" for thousand. Everybody understands that and the value is much clearer, because everybody knows that Satoshi is the smallest possible denomination.
I don't know who originally came up with this "bits" invention, but I think it makes no sense at all and should be abandoned.

There are very few items for sale that would cost 1 mBTC, or even 100 mBTC as 1 mBTC would be only ~63 cents and 100 mBTC would be ~$6.30, while most transactions in bitcoin are worth hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.

I think Satoshi must have been an old school programmer.

8 Bits is a Byte.

So to have a system of Bits with 8 decimal points is based entirely on old school programming logic of 8 bits is a byte, only he chose to build Bitcoin on 8 Decimals is a Bit instead of 8 Bits is a Byte, if he called it a Bytecoin it would have perfect, IMO as to naming it in honor of how bits and bytes really work.

Anyone calling 8 Bitcoins a Byte yet.

Had Bitcoin been Bytecoin we would be calling the fractions bits and the coins bytes and it would be a perfectly phrased digital currency in semantics.