Bitcoin Forum

EDIT: I answered a few questions on the topic for a CoinDesk article: http://www.coindesk.com/june-2-m-day-promotes-millibitcoin-as-unit-of-choice/

EDIT2: As of today I will be using mBTC whenever appropriate. I encourage you to do the same. Also, many clients/wallets have built in support for mBTC so be sure to change it over. Blockchain and Bitcoin QT included.

Now that Bitcoin's price is (relatively speaking) stable and shows no signs of any major decline in the near future, I think it is time to take a look at how we measure it. At the current price of ~$130, BTC is a little awkward to work with: If I wanted to buy something for $3.99 in Bitcoin, I'd have to pay BTC0.03069. That's an unattractive way of pricing things.

If, however, we made mBTC the default "denomination of reference" a few things would happen:

- Prices would be easier to work with, BTC0.03069 would become mBTC30.69. Much better (note the precision is the same).
- Bitcoin's exchange rate would be (seem) more attractive to newcomers. Many of which find $130 questionable because they don't understand the market.
- Newcomers wouldn't keep asking about why there are only 21,000,000 units, since there would obviously be 21,000,000,000. Plenty for now.

What do you think?

NEW OPTION:

Switch to XBT. An XBT is 100 satoshi (or 1/1,000,000 BTC). This allows us to have $21,000,000,000,000 units of the base unit of currency, and an exchange rate much less threatening to newcomers.

zinodaur put it better than me:

http://zinodaur.com/mday.png (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=200931.msg2288776#msg2288776)

Absolutely, mBtc would be the better unit to get more people interested in Bitcoins.
It's just a psychological effect, but a huge one.

+1 Just fyi, I have already made the switch where possible. If this poll get's support I am going to start a petition to send to BitPay. Just to clarify the petition would ask for the option to use mBTC so it wouldn't force a switch.

As I said in another thread, the word "coin" here is the problem. People see coins as small, semi-worthless denominations of a larger unit, and they also see them as somewhat non-divisible, at least not by a significant amount. It's not really in anybody's reality that you can divide a coin up to eight decimal places, so by having individual coins worth $130+, a psychological barrier is thrown up which creates resistance to adoption.

I propose that we retarget the word "Bitcoin" at smaller denominations, and perhaps start assigning (colloquially at least) the word BitDollar, or something else, to the denomination currently used by Bitcoin. By doing this, people will feel like what they are exchanging their fiat currency for has more actual value. I feel this is a better solution than simply defaulting to "mBTC", as mBTC is (a) a mouthful and (b) still appears to be a tiny subdivision of a greater whole, which doesn't address the psychological barrier issue.

I see your point, but I think that would be pretty controversial. mBTC is a mouthful, but if we could come up with an alternative term for it (similar to how 1000th of $1 is a mill), it wouldn't be a problem. I think mBTC is simple enough, after all, even in the US people are taught decimal based measurements in school so just about everyone understands them.

We just have to make sure we don't end up saying "10 mee" like how the British use "10 pee."  ;)

this is good idea but almost impossible to convince everybody to use and don't confuse too much everyone.

So that's what M-Day was referring to! Ha ha!

Oops - someone took the bag off the cat!

Fantastic!

I think m-Day could be huge. All we need is MtGox on board. As I said earlier:

I agree with your reasoning but I believe it is the "Bit" portion that is giving people the perception of "small, semi-worthless". I'd rather not see names like Bitcent, or millibit, or anything with "bit" in it. I like the idea of naming the denominations after those who've contributed to getting Bitcoin off the ground. Like 1 mBTC could be called a Gavin. I don't really care if it is called a Gavin, just want a unique name not associated with the word bit.

And I agree, no one should ever see the price of 1 BTC at $1,000. We should be dealing with smaller denominations before that happens.

I agree mBTC is kind of awkward. It's 4 syllables, and it isn't obviously related to Bitcoin unless you already know what BTC means.

Ideally we'd use something that's 1-3 syllables, and is obviously related to Bitcoin.

"Bitdollar" seems counter-intuitive since it's less than a bitcoin, but would be relatively close in value to USD... for now.

"Millicoin" sounds like a tiny amount, otherwise I like it. It extends to "Microcoin" if we're ever fortunate enough to have that problem.

How about MBC? Mili Bitcoin

Or maybe just "Milicoin".

The word Bond might have potential.

What does the m stand for? Milli or micro?

I find it confusing and would rather use a decimal point than worry about mBTC.

From a subliminal, mass-marketing standpoint, "bit" is sometimes associated with something small, fractional, and insignificant, and "coin" is most commonly associated with a fraction of a dollar, franc, or peso.  

It is like being named Trevor or Agnes.

Although it is probably too late to do anything about it.

car names
http://carzz.co/designbook/375/ten-of-the-worst-car-names/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/car-life/best-and-worst-weird-wacky-and-wonderful-car-names/article12220424/

Why isnt there a "i support another denomination" option

LOL! I'm sure there are some Trevor's and Agnes' out there that like their name. Ha ha!

The easiest way to force adoption of such a change would be to simply change the default units in the next bitcoin-qt release from BTC to mBTC.

Most people would not change the default and get used to dealing with mBTC.

What do you prefer?

10 mbc (milibitcoin)
10 mBTC
10 milis
10 milcoins
Other...

I really like 1 mbc, in lowercase also indicates that it's a subunit.

Primarily based on James Bond's connection to Miss Moneypenny.   ;)

How about "mibs"? That's a combination of "milli" + "bit". It's easy to say, easy to spell, and has meaning. Right now $10 could buy you roughly 76 1/2 mibs. One mib would be worth just over $0.13 US or 13 cents at this time. If a single BTC was worth $1,000 then a mib would be $1 US. Then we could go to mibcents equal to a single US penny.

+1 for this

A switch to lower denomination is an excellent idea. I still talk to people who don't realise btc is divisible and as such think that it can't work.

M-Day is also a great idea - but the 2nd of June is far too soon. Get general agreement on a proposal on this board. Then gent consensus among a significant number of the exchanges and chart sites to default to mbtc in principle (with an option to switch view to btc). Then try and hammer out a target date.

Good point re. software. The wallet sites and wallet software devs would need to agree too.

The word "Bitcoin" has too much momentum to subvert it now, and any attempt to do so would only further confuse the masses, which are already pretty confused by this whole Bitcoin thing as it stands.

The base unit of the Bitcoin currency is the bitcoin. As we're all scientifically minded folks here, it makes sense to use the SI prefixes to denote smaller (and larger) quantities of bitcoins.

The abbreviation of the bitcoin unit is BTC. It really should have been XBC, if we were to follow the rules of the ISO regarding currency codes, but it's not, and again, we're dealing with momentum. You can't easily change it now, nor should you, for the aforementioned reason.

Thus, the logical conclusion is that quantities of bitcoins may be expressed in units of millibitcoins, and the abbreviation of the millibitcoin is mBTC.

In casual parlance, I wouldn't expect anyone to utter the phonemes "em bee tee cee." I'd expect people to say "mils," "millies," or "millibits." I'd expect "millibitcoins" will be considered too formal for casual utterance.

I personally will probably say "mill," dropping the 's' even in the plural. "Are you kidding me?! 42 mill for a beer?!"

+1, does anyone know how to propose a software change to QT?

Fork the repository, commit your change, and submit a pull request.

Just use mB for anything less than one bitcoin.

E.G. the price of a USD is currently 7.8 mB.

But when dealing with larger numbers it still makes sense to use whole bitcoins rather than mB.

E.G. I would sell my car for 31 btc.

It would be silly to say my car costs 31000 mB, and even sillier to say my car cost 31 kmB (31 kilomillibitcoin)

This would require the developers okay. You'd need to be able to convince them. I would say that you would also have to convince all users but unfortunately that is not the case anymore seeing as to how easily Gavin was able to make changes to the client and simply tell everyone you either get with the new or stay behind. Of course I'm referring to the exclusion of certain transactions from the blockchain. Now, whether you thought that the change to the new client version was good or not does not matter the point is that a change was easily made by elite members. So there's your answer convince them that your proposed change has positive outcome and the rest of us that use the Bitcoin-qt client will have no choice but to accept it.

The psychological factor is important... 1 XRP is trading at $0.02, sounds cheap right? Well, since there are 100 Billions XRP, the price is about same as Bitcoin today. So if we can get exchanges to talk in mBTC and price becomes $0.13 instead of $130 it will be a great thing for Bitcoin.

1 bitcarat = 1 carat bitcoin = 1/100 BTC, still gives a feeling of expensive

Maybe the majority of the users was just fine with this patch, did you think about that?
Of course it was no problem to make this patch then.

First of all, I'm not familiar with Github, second, I'm not qualified to make the programming or configuration change. For those reasons someone else will have to do it.

EDIT: I don't mean that rudely at all, I'm just saying that I can't do it.

mBTC! It's not a matter of what you like or not. mX is the standard way to say it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milli

Let's use standards. Please.

However, what you prefer to call it in casual conversation is another discussion. There you have my vote for "millibit", short for "millibitcoin".

It is standard but not usual for currencies.

I mean how many times have you heard about giga-dollars or peta-euros...

Often orders for small items in my store are priced in the mBTC range.  I have orders down to 16 mBTC SHIPPED for a set of QR stickers for example. 

Since we don't have a central authority to decide what to call smaller denominations, it's only logical to fall back on standard units.

http://s9.postimg.org/8s8z8c367/MBTC.jpg

My contribution.

A Satoshi is the smallest division.  It seems logical to continue the tradition and name the decimal shifts after developers.  Gavin is appropriate.

"Send me 27 gavins"
"your total is 7.9 gavins"

I even started using it :D

It feels good to see some extra numbers in coins  ;D

Ever heard of gold coins, cretin?

I guess they need rebrand them too...

Mate please add a additonal "A" in gavins. So i can change it to vaginas.

I actually think this idea doesn't go far enough. We should switch to microbitcoins (0.000001 BTC = 1 uBTC = 100 Satoshi) as the basic unit (equivalent of the dollar, pound or euro) as soon as possible.

21 million basic units isn't psychologically enough for a global currency. 21 billion is better. But 21 trillion is even better as we start talking about the GDPs/deficits/QE programs of very sizeable countries in terms of 'trillions' of currency units.

Which naturally begs the question, why not go the whole hog and make the satoshi the basic unit? Well, we're all accustomed to having our basic currency unit divisible into 100 cents or pence. So this way we think of a satoshi as equivalent to a cent, a microbitcoin as equivalent to a 'bitdollar'. And a whole bitcoin is a million 'bitdollars'. Anyone who has a whole bitcoin is a millionaire.

That might seem a little ludicrous NOW, It'll mean a 'bitdollar' is currently only worth 0.01 'real'  ( ::)) cents, and you need maybe 100,000 bitdollars to buy a decent pizza. But it will help to highlight even more how bitcoins are a store of value, and your bitdollars are only going to get more valuable with time. And if you currently have a whole bitcoin, you SHOULD think of yourself as a millionaire IMO. You may not be right now, but give it maybe 20 years.

Anyway I currently have around 200 million bitdollars worth of assets - some actual bitdollars, some as ASICminer stock. I'm going to be a millionaire soon. And so are most of you.

Just rename them credits!
The future is here :D

+1

But we don't need a cheasy name like bitdollar...
100 satoshis = 1 Bitcoin , 1 satoshi = well still 1 satoshi but also a bitcoin cent to help non geeks to adapt easier...

Agree with OP though maybe Jun 2 is too soon.

It's irrational but true: people are happy to buy ripple or other alts because they're so cheap, but not buy bitcoin because it is too expensive.

I created this thread a couple days ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=216175.0 . So obviously I am in favor of this change.

naming and pronunciation is one thing but I also think there should be some type of sliding representation of price in marketplaces.  say an item in dollars is 5.99 there should be some type of standard sliding denomination that closely reflects this number.  

so $5.99 would be represented as 5.99XXXX
i hope that makes sense.

I prefer just BTC instead of mBTC.  But hopefully some day in the future we can just use Satoshi's.

why don't we just call them bits?

it rolls off the tongue, and also implies that they're not full bitcoins. who knows, maybe in time it'll all be bits and coins, with 1000 bits in a coin rather than 1000mBTC in 1BTC. sure seems a lot less clumsy.

just a thought.  ;)

Nice pic :)

Gratz

1. Change the common name of a Satoshi to a bit.
2. Use the analogy of data storage to monetary storage.
3. 1 BTC = 100mb, or 1 bitcoin = 100 megabits.
4. Think of everything in bit.
5. Easy :)

We could pronounce an mBTC as "em bit".

Here's my two favourite so far:

Long name: Millibit.
Abbreviation: mbit
Pronounciation: embit (only singular)

Longname: Millibit
Abbreviation: ₥
Pronounciation: mill (only singular)

The mill already exists as a currency unit and is equivalent to 1/10th of a cent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_%28currency%29

1 BTC is "One Bitcion".
1 mBTC is "One MilliBit".
That's not so hard, is it?

I think it's a wonderful idea.

As for the official term I think it should follow the standards: millibitcoin, mBTC etc.

That being said, I really like "em bit" or just "bit" as a term for everyday use. The US 1 cent coin is really just that, 1 cent, but everyone calls it a "penny,"  which is nowhere on the coin.

It will have a positive affect to bitcoin's adoption.

Please rather consider XBT for reasons elaborated here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220761.msg2326526#msg2326526

Although the most sensible solution long-term, it does cause issues with the current exchange rate.  Even the cheapest items will be quoted in hundreds of thousands of XBT, and the exchange rate itself doesn't look quite so appealing when it's 0.000129$/XBT.

I don't see why people can't just use the units that are most appropriate to the denomination.  Use 150mBTC rather than 0.15BTC; use 20MBTC rather than 20000000BTC; use 24XBT (or 24uBTC) rather than 0.000024BTC.  Is it so hard?

For people who want to use Bitcoin as a currency instead of a hobby, yes, it's too complicated.

Milk = mBTC15
Expensive wine = BTC0.99
Basic Membership = uBTC 999
Silver Membership = mBTC 9.99
Enterprise Membership = BTC 9.99

A dollar is 7,700 XBT at the moment. The dust limit is 54 XBT. Therefore XBT covers quite well the micropayment range and the commas make it easier to read then 0.0077 - 0.000054 BTC. Reading mBTC out of XBT is also easy 7,700 XBT = 7.7 mBTC.

For higher sums 123,456,789 XBT is 123.456789 BTC also easy.

I think people generally more used to deal with big numbers than with small fractions.

According to the thread an XBT (shouldn't it be XBC?) is a millibitcoin, not a microbitcoin.

More likely:

Milk = mBTC15
Expensive wine = BTC0.99
Basic Membership = mBTC 1 (let's be realistic about this one)
Silver Membership = mBTC 10
Enterprise Membership = mBTC 10000 (assuming that a 1000x increase is again reasonable)

In the same way:

Milk = 99c
Expensive wine = $99
Basic membership = $1,000
Silver membership = $10,000
Enterprise membership = $10M

The reality is that people deal with different denominations all the time, just not usually at the same time.  If all your groceries are in the mBTC range then they'll all be priced using that range.  In the meantime all of the houses for sale will probably be in the kBTC range so will all be priced in that range.

---

Of course, commas and decimal points mean different things in different locales, but that's more of an i18n issue than a knock at picking any particular range to use as a valid level.

I believe that if Bitcoin is going to be successful it is going to need to be at the level where talking about a few XBT is similar to talking about a few dollars/yen/whatever.  But for talking about real values I don't see it being useful for a long time yet.

I do agree with the idea that big numbers are easier to think about than mall fractions.  But like it or not the worth of Bitcoin is compared directly to that of USD and so we're probably looking at appreciation of three orders of magnitude until XBT are used directly.

---

From Grau's post:

This, a thousand times

That really is different from what we are talking about here. Your example is more like:

Milk = BTC0.99
Expensive wine = BTC9.99
Basic membership = BTC1,000
Silver membership = BTC10,000
Enterprise membership = BTC10M

As for me having the basic membership priced in uBTC, I'm to make a point, not say that's what it would actually cost. Also keep in mind that in the same way stores use $0.99 instead of $1, Bitcoin stores are likely to use uBTC when it will make their products look cheaper.

1 XBT = 100 satoshi.

That is all you need to remember, just like 1 Dollar = 100 cents.
Conversions between BTC or mBTC and XBT are simple since the thousand separators indicate them.

Milk = 15,000 XBT = mBTC 15
Expensive wine = 990,000 XBT = BTC 0.99 = 990 mBTC
Basic Membership = 9.9 XBT = uBTC 999
Silver Membership = 9,900 XBT = mBTC 9.99
Enterprise Membership = 9,900,000 XBT = BTC 9.99

I like that idea a lot. If it were up to me I think I'd go with it, BUT how would that change the public's perception?

People new to Bitcoin will like it from the beginning since it is closer to what they are used to.

It is rather the old Bitcoiners who have to finally get it, that this would help adoption and is actually a must if you were to store Bitcoins in a database or system shared with other currencies.

Can you explain how it's a must?

More like the majority that aren't worried about ever sending or receiving small amounts of bitcoin, but what about start ups looking to accept any amount of btc for donation to their hopefully future business?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name

Naming Bitcoin denominations can have a massive impact.  For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slang_terms_for_money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slang_terms_for_money).

I give 200 mBTC as birthday/graduation gifts; way more exciting than 0.2 BTC.

*If* Bitcoin is wildly successful then we will be facing this denomination naming problem again.

We cannot deny our history; 1 BTC is already a valuable thing and could go up in value.

bit = techie but there is also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_(money) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shave_and_a_Haircut
coin = http://etymonline.com/?term=coin but I do not know the intent of the original name giver; my guess is they meant to provoke thoughts of gold coins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

The young will accept things more readily; the old will not.  The young are poor; the old are rich.

We are fraught with hidden assumptions, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal.

6th of February?

That's been and gone mate!

I think it's 2nd of June..Which is coming.

I thought it was 6th of February as well! You guys gotta think globally...

June 2nd man.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/iso_8601.png (http://xkcd.com/1179/)

Virtually none of the existing finance applications or databases storing currency support a precision more than two decimal digits. All finance applications use three capital letter ISO currency codes (mBTC is 4 and mixed case).

You want to store and process Bitcoin where the other currencies are, then it is a must.

Here again a reasoning in more detail: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220761.msg2326526#msg2326526

MBC or MBT

XBT because X is reserved for supranational in ISO and BT because it got most votes in the community until now. Please stop throwing in new alternatives just for the sake of fun.

I voted Yes, but I should have voted this option:

Switch to XBT. An XBT is 100 satoshi (or 1/1,000,000 BTC). This allows us to have $21,000,000,000,000 units of the base unit of currency, and an exchange rate much less threatening to newcomers.

I like the idea of allowing for more price growth in Bitcoin, and also complying with international standards for having only two decimal places of fractionality.

I like this. XBT should get more attention!

Also, stop with your "funny-dates". YYYY-MM-DD is the ONLY correct way to type dates. STANDARDS!

I think we should wait until Bitcoin raises in value more.

I'd like to point out that while switching to XBT is important, there is no commonly accepted denomination of XBT as compared to what we currently know as BTC. For example, in the thread grau linked to, the original post proposed XBT as a name for mBTC, while grau later posted the more database compliant idea of having XBT be 100 satoshi, or 1 µBTC.

There are really multiple problems here. The first is the issue with BTC being non-compliant with ISO standards. The second is how we refer to very large or very small amounts of bitcoins. A third is that current financial databases have precision to two decimal places, and no more.

grau's proposed change to a standard of 1 XBT = 1 µBTC attempts to solve the first and third of these issues. It is not a solution to the second issue (which is the topic this thread is intended to be about). As one USD would be equivalent to ~7,700 XBT at the current exchange rate, we still have the issue of very large numbers. If XBT are more reasonably talked about in multiples of 1000, a reasonable solution would be to use kXBT, so that 1 USD ≈ 7.7 kXBT. This is just as much of a decimal place shift as BTC -> mBTC. This does not mean 1 XBT = 1 µBTC is a bad idea, but it is not a solution to the issue this thread was started to talk about, and it is not a substitute for the metric system. As such, I see it as a very out of place option in the poll.

Here are my preferred solutions to the three problems. XBT is a great term, and I'd like to see it in use. I do prefer to have BTC-XBT parity (that is, XBT is simply an ISO-compliant name for BTC). This is the simplest solution, gaining ISO compliance without having debates about whether it should be equivalent to mBTC or µBTC. It solves the problem without forcing users to learn a completely new system for representing their bitcoins. For a user who's more out of the loop and less tech-savvy, a simple rename is easier to understand than a rename with a complete re-denomination.

The solution to the second problem is easy: use the metric system. I fully support the use of mBTC and µBTC, or with BTC-XBT parity, mXBT and µXBT. I don't understand the people saying "Most currencies don't use metric, so we shouldn't either". If most places in the US use the imperial system, does that mean we shouldn't switch to metric? I would argue that both the 100-centric currency system and imperial system are inferior to the standard of metric, and that both should switch to it. As for the naming and push for usage, I feel this is something that will happen with time. As long as people are aware that metric is the way to go, people will start using it in discussion just because it's easier to use. A waiter at a restaurant will realize that it's simpler to say "23 millibits" or "23 millibitcoins" than it is to say "point zero two three bitcoins". We will likely have a gradual change from bitcoin to millibitcoin (I've already started to use it where appropriate), with mBTC-dollar parity being the point where just about everyone uses it. Slang, such as millie, gavin, mil, etc, will develop with time, but that's not something we can democratically vote on or enforce. If we start using millibitcoin, slang will come.

The third issue is easily solved in software. There is always an abstraction layer between the data stored in a database and what is presented to users. That is, the denomination stored in the database does not have to be the denomination presented to the user. Financial institutions can store bitcoin count in µBTC (µXBT) so that they have their two decimal place precision, then present it to anyone who wants to reference it as BTC or mBTC (XBT or mXBT). In the unlikely case that each database entry HAS to have only three characters and there is no abstraction layer whatsoever, they could simply add another table to the database to hold the metric multiplier for each currency stored, or even just change the database. There are so many solutions, and it's not something Bitcoin needs to solve. If the future of currency really does lie in a wide variety of cryptocurrencies, all with their own preferred abbreviations and metric prefixes, it may be the burden of the financial institutions to change their software to accept a wider variety of numbers. Just as Bitcoin is making governments realize that their current systems are inadequate for handling decentralized currency, Bitcoin and the currencies that follow will make financial institutions realize that their systems must be changed as well.

It amazes me to an extent just how much people are motivated by such trivial psychological factors.

This much?

http://i43.tinypic.com/lv0ba.jpg

Which one is better half banana, quarter banana or 60 bananas?

Me too, but it is a very real psychological phenomenon, and far from trivial.  This is a legitimate conversation to have if we want to see mass adoption of Bitcoin.

You know why they have stock splits?  100% because of the psychological barrier of people not wanting to invest in stock valued much higher per share than comparable stocks in the same industry.

Bitcoin needs a stock split.  It is far too overvalued per unit for the average person to feel good about investing in it.

Yes, it's amazing(/scary) how much effect it has.

Haha, I certainly agree that it is appropriate here, but MM-DD-YYYY is the U.S. standard and I will continue to use it when appropriate.

It's like how everyone got obsessed with the metric system: It works great for special fields but sucks for everyday use.

I mean think about it.  Who WOULDN'T want to jump on the Bitcoin gravy train if you could buy a share for $0.00012 that is predicted to be worth $54/ea by Bloomberg?  Heck, who wouldn't immediately buy 100,000 shares of the stuff, as a "just in case" hedge?

Are you only trying to get USians to switch to mBTC?


Seriously? As compared to the English system, where no one can remember all the conversions?

The metric system brings up a good point. With distance, for example, you have a meter at a reasonable length and then you can go up or down from there 1,000xmeter = kilometer, 1/1000xmeter=millimeter. But with Bitcoin, we started at the top and are having to work our way down from there. It's like saying 1 meter equals the distance from the Earth to the moon and then we have to break down meters smaller and smaller. Maybe we need a standard unit of measure somewhere between 1 BTC and 1 Satoshi where we can go up or down from that. We kind of already do that with dollars, obviously dimes and pennies in the downward direction, but also everyone knows what is "a Grand" or "10 Grand". That's easier than saying "Ten-thousand dollars".

This was irony, right? Since I am not 100% fluent in English, irony can sometimes pass me by as someone making a serious argument.

Metrics is the standard. The minority that uses other systems should adapt as quickly as possible.

LSD is worth 30,000$ per gram, doesn't stop people from "investing" into it even though they are buying 0.00005 of a gram for 20 bucks. Are drug users more enlightened than the average Bitcoin user?

The problem with the metric system is that the base measurements were poorly chosen, and the system isn't a huge improvement to begin with.

Standard units are just so convenient. Why is a meter so darn huge and a gram so small?

 Is it really that hard to remember a few simple ratios?

Besides the mile, 5,280 feet, it's all simple. As for celsius, do we really need a whole new system just to make it easier to remember the temperatures at which water boils and freezes? Really? 32, 212, that simple!

I guess I don't know why I don't like metric, I just don't.

Why fix what isn't broken? No one complains that there are 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day, 30-31 days in a month, and 365 days in a year. Life is full of things you have to remember.

--- ANYWAY, we all have preferences and I for one will remain 6 feet tall and 135 lbs instead of 1.288 Meters and 61,235 grams. Back on topic.

Actually, kg is the standard unit for weight, not g. It's the only standard unit with a prefix.

You should not use the term "Standard units" about your imperial system, that's just fail...

You will get the first one for free, after that you are addicted. No need for more tricks here.

There's a difference between investing and moving product you know will sell at a higher price.

I can see your metric conversions are working most excellently.  ;)

I used grams tongue in cheek, I do understand metric and for some purposes use it.

Actually, in thee US it is referred to as the Standard System. There is a difference too, as I student pilot if I was to fly to the UK, I would have to convert from Imperial gallons to Standard/US gallons.

Hello my name is Casinobit and I am the Bitcoin addict, have been stacking since the first hit on Bitcoin-OTC in early 11'


What makes you think that BTC will not sell at a "higher price"?

They don't measure them in grams, but in "hits" (according to random internet searches), which is exactly the point being made here.

XBT to mean uBTC (or was it mBTC) is the worst idea ever. There is nothing useful in the name that is going to help you remember what portion of a bitcoin it is.

I think we should use mBTC for 1/1000 of a BTC. and it can be abbreviated in speech as "millcoin".

Transition should occur sometime after 1 BTC = $1000.

wtf? Should we switch to $ct.? I mean people do if it applies and use $1M if it applies. Same with bitcoin. Please stop making problems where there are no problems.

(I met several people that did not understand that bitcoins are divisible and that is a problem. not the use of BTC or mBTC. Explain it well and assume people will miss the divisibility point.)

The whole unit change seems so disruptive and difficult to coordinate now -- do we really want to have to deal with another one later when there are way more people to try to coordinate? I really think we should look to the endgame and figure out where we want to be.

I'd propose moving to uB (micro-bitcoin = 1e-6) as the standard unit now and forever. For now, it can be referred to as uB or uBTC, but over time, once it's ubiquitous, it should just be called a bitcoin. Because the smallest unit is the satoshi (1e-8), this means uB-denominated prices would get 2 decimal places maximum, which is the most that any consumer wants to deal with anyway.

At the same time, I'd propose inverting the exchange rate, so instead of quoting uB/USD = .00013, it would be quoted as USD/uB = 7692. This is exactly the same way Yen are quoted relative to USD (USDJPY = 100.66), and is also the same way other private virtual currencies such as WoW gold are quoted.

For now the change to mBTC is easy.

1mBTC is around 0.14$ which works for 10x and 100x increase in value.

If we see 100x increase in price it'd be around 100-200 billion $ worth of coins in circulation (that's like  Russia or India). Satoshi? That's up to the gods.

Amen. Think about the end game now, otherwise we'll have the same problem 5 years from now with mBTC. Besides, when bitcoin started out, the exchange rate was BTC10,000 / 2 pizzas. We can live with it for a while.

The focus should be on making it user friendly and starting with the top end of the currency as the standard unit (bitcoin) and moving down the scale just isn't user friendly.

Setting the standard with 2 decimal places would be inline with most western based currencys which works great. Or if we could go with the smallest unit of currency as the standard which is similar to the yen.

I'd be in favor of microbit (uBTC / 1e-6) for these reasons:

• Solves having to re-denominate the currency again in the future.
• Only two decimal places which is inline with the western currency system making adoption easier.
• Easier to pronounce. "You can buy seventy seven thousand eight hundred and fifty one microbits (77,851 uBTC) for ten dollars" is easier to pronounce than "You can buy zero point zero seven seven eight five one bitcoins (0.077851) for $10"
• The psychological barrier of entry is much lower because you're getting tens of thousands of something instead of one of something or even a fraction of something.
• uBTC is already compatible with every finance based database in existance.
• People will get confused between microbits and millibits as they're both visually and audibly similar.

No.

We want mass adoption and adding a "milli" to the name just at a time when most people identify Bitcoin as, "That crazy internet bubble the geeks got stung by" is not going to help its image in my opinion.

Just call an mBTC something ELSE, a bit less geeky.

Apart from the US, the rest of the world is absolutely familiar in their daily lives with metric units like kilometers, milligrams, milliliters, millimeters, cents.

It's not geeky at all and entirely natural to use millibitcoins, millibits or whatever. I suppose you are from the US?

Look at all those geeks using those weird units. ;D ;D ;D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Countries_adopting_Metric_System_2006.png

GB in green? Hmmm...

I'm not sure this is accurate, I watch Top Gear and they use MPH. Last I heard, Great Britain uses Standard or a mixture.

Does this detail matter in the large picture?

Fact is, Bitcoin is supposed to be an international currency, and we have nearly the whole world population using the metric system.

Cyprus, China, Argentina, all the countries Bitcoiners are so hyped about use the metric system.

USA and UK will have to adapt, not the other way around.

No, not at all, that just caught my eye

Wow, that should not be easy when you are used to make the entire world following you

Are you suggesting to replace the international standard Kelvin by your degree Fahrenheit?

I completely agree that we should use metric prefixes for BTC. I don't like metric MEASUREMENTS, but it works for Bitcoin. Hell, even the US Dollar uses them.

---

No, but I am suggesting that the US  should continue to use Fahrenheit; there's no reason to switch.

This whole discussion is getting really off track, I brought it up sort of tounge in cheek (although my arguments are mostly real). Please, back to Bitcoin!

The base unit should just be the "bit" (the 4th decimal place). Smaller than that you have Satoshis.

This divides the range in half, and you never have to use a number larger than 9,999. A bitcoin is 10,000 bits; a bit is 10,000 Satoshis.

The names are very easy to remember, and "bit" fits Bitcoin perfectly as its base unit.

Metric prefixes are cumbersome and unnecessary.

I think metric prefixes are a better fit for Bitcoin. Otherwise we have to argue over arbitrary names. Slang will develop over time, but the official names should remain SI

---

Too ambiguous given they are already used by USD.

XBT, please. 8)

I don't think this would scare new users. I hope this would benefit entire bitcoin ecosystem. Besides, these symbols (BTC, mBTC and XBT) can co-exist peacefully.

Here is a petition from change.org,

www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/six-interbank-clearing-include-a-symbol-for-bitcoin-in-iso-4217

Thanks.

Our startup will be calling the mBTC a "bit", and using the symbol below.

Let the market decide.  Would your mother rather own a "mBTC" or a "Bit"?  a mBTC is a just a group of letters to a layman.  A Bit is something that gives life to the unit.  If bitcoins were called oTDC's, or "OogleToadcoins, how interested would a layman be in owning them, as opposed to branding them "bitcoins"?  Because to a layman, you might as well call a MilliBitcoin an OogleToadcoin. Sometimes I think we live with tunnel vision in bitcoin land, in ignoring the larger picture.  So unless our goal is to remain an exclusive club and disregard laymen, I think "bit" is the logical choice.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/935424_10100616722255594_687101435_n.jpg

Also, there is a perfect unicode symbol that already exists (U+0180) ƀ

'Bits' would be best suited for colloquial / everyday usage, like bucks, grands.

Whether this 'bits' would be milli / micro BTC depends on the exchange rate.

Now it is perfectly fine to use 'bits' for 1 milli BTC, but you wouldn't be calling it 'bits', when 1 milli BTC costs around $100.

Still, we need a ISO standard currency code, XBT.

Again, all these currency codes (BTC, mBTC, uBTC, Bits, XBT) can coexist peacefully. :)

Agreed.

How many decimal places can you divide the Euro into?

Ok, now make Bitcoin match that.

Lower case b is genius ...

And old

"Bit" is pronounced like the French word "bite" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bite#French), which means dick.
Perhaps you should avoid asking whether your customers' mothers want to own a "bit", if you ever have francophone customers. ;)

That's great, but a more logical proposal is to call the midpoint a bit so that you cover everything in an evenly divided manner. That way, a bit would be 10,000 Satoshis and a full bitcoin would be 10,000 bits.

If you use bit for the 3rd decimal place, then you'll have an uneven remaining range to the right.

Yeah it doesnt matter.  Germans call money, 'coal' or 'mice' ... go figure.  There can be lots of names for the same thing so long as you got it in the right context it's ok. 

I like mice. 1 mBTC = mouse, 10 mBTC = 10 mice  8)

These discussions are somewhat moot. The term milli is a standard prefix in the metric system and used daily by scientists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix

I see these discussions about how to implement some kind of change without confusing people. Well sorry, the system is already in place and is already in use. People use millimeter, and milligram daily, just use mBTC when convient and those who don't get it will learn. Hopefully one day we will microBTC and nanoBTC discussions too but again they will be mute, this is how numbers work in standard form.. its normal... if it confuses you then get some maths education.

mBTC does not need to be the "standard denomination" it should simply be used when convenient as thats how numbers work.

as well as moot

Lol ta edited.

Somehow I am convinced that mBTC change is very important than moving directly XBT.
mBTC is change is going to make news, and push BTC exchange rates higher.

If I have to speculate, mBTC is going to reach in parity with dollar, within its first year of adoption.  8)

XBT adoption can wait at least 4 - 5 years, for now.

When mBTC exchange rates reaches $100 leavels, XBT change can push exchange rates further.

So, it is better to save XBT adoption for later.

---

I wonder why mbtc adoption is not happening.. :(

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/victorhugo136258.html (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/victorhugo136258.html) ... mBTC's time hasn't come yet.

It's coming and it was always natural it would come. This thread has no merits in it coming. We should think about starting µɃ. Lets open a thread!

It is too late
Centimicrobitcoins Tiem!

Because it is a stupid idea.
It might have a psychological effect but that doesn't suffice to justify such a radical measure.

Why don't we change the currencies' ISO code every time a currency appreciates or devalues.
Because it's important to have stability with every currency.

What do you do when Bitcoin drops down to 30 dollars or even 5 or 2 dollars in the next six months (it's possible)?
Switch back to BTC?

It is a stupid idea as long as Bitcoin isn't relatively stable AND very widely used.
Once it's every other day in the mainstream media such a change could happen without utterly confusing people.
(But we are very far away from that)

Currently, 1 mBTC and 1 uBTC are pretty much useless, so I don't see why they need to be adopted yet. Most items being sold for bitcoins now that I've seen have only gone out to two decimal places anyways. If one day enough people use bitcoins so as to warrant the use of those denominations, then it would make sense. But until then it's pretty pointless to measure price in mBTC or uBTC when very few things are priced that low.

Give it some time. There will be more and more people call for this change, in time, mbc will come naturally.

There may be people who think they can handle tiny decimal numbers on daily basis; but if BTc is to become mainstream, the rest of us, 99% of the population do not want to deal with zeros after the decimal point.

I'm against using micro-bitcoin now so we can switch to bitcoin later (when? - not a good idea: confusing!).

The idea about defining the standard as 1e-6 isn't that bad. I think the two decimals for regular consumers might be a good idea.
BTW that could also be called hSatoshi (hecto Satoshi) according to SI-standards.


And again our beloved American(s) are unaware that they are not alone on the planet and that their customs are not
necessarily the global standard!

Every "big" economy uses their currency as the base currency and all others as counter currencies.
It might be standard in the US to quote the Euro as USDEUR or USD/EUR
but in Europe all currencies are counter currencies to the EUR => EURUSD, EURGBP, EURCHF, etc.
I assume that China and Japan act the same way.

Since BTC is a global, nation-less currency (and the biggest of all crypto-currencies for that matter) the only logical step is to quote
BTCXXX (including BTCUSD). What is more, the base currency is usually regarded as dominant / of more value.



 

I switched my Bitcoin-QT wallet to display mBTC just now. Yay, I'm "rich"! ;D

Just to warn you, bitcoin price tends to crash when I do things like this. ;D

The price are so high up now may be it will skip mBTC to uBTC , its all depend on the price

As bullish as I might be, in the short term, I'm not that bullish. ;D

It'll be good when exchanges, charts and similar platforms offer mBTC display (also, fiat per mBTC), stickable via cookie or account settings. I think this is very important, because psychologically some people don't want to mess with 0,000... etc. I am adept enough mathematically for the fractions not to bother me, but now I find mBTC display much more "humanized" and aesthetically pleasing. When bitcoin price was much lower than this, mBTC was often just too trivial to bother with TBH. ;D

First, we live in the 21st century people, we have technology, we can write μ when we mean μ can't we?

The unicode arbiters might not yet have given us our beloved double-stroke-B, but the greeks had a bit of a head start, so that's to be expected.

But writing a u when you mean μ is just a little bit unclever, don't you think?

Right, anyhow, to the case in point.  I agree that we should skip mB and head straight for μB.  One of the things we can learn from Friedman et al is that deflation impedes liquidity.  That's probably the most common criticism of bitcoin from serious economists - some people will sit on their stash [just like governments and others used to (or still do) with gold].  And deflation hurts liquidity - at least traditionally.

But Bitcoin in all it's brilliance has an 'out' - it doesn't need to stop at eight decimals. 

We should look to leverage that fact.  For every economist who worries about deflation and the currency failing due to it not being sufficiently liquid, the response should be that virtually anyone sitting on even a single unit BTC will not be  troubled by selling off a zillionth (i.e. hundred-millionth) of their holding to ensure liquidity remains.

Those who shepherd the protocol should already be looking to add another eight decimals, and those of us who want bitcoin to achieve its destiny should be talking up micro-bitcoin by yesterday at the latest.  People need to perceive μB as a unit in order to get around the psychological barriers to seeing value in 0.000001 of something.  μB has an additional advantage, in that one satoshi is 1/100th, which is how people are used to thinking about dollars and cents (pounds and pence, etc etc)

But please please please, thats micro, with a mu. μ.

Razick for sure we should start using the new currency of modern time bitcoin as a standard one. No more usage of currency that is manipulated by central banks for their own personnel benefits. I am sick of tapering even now on $10 billion reduced. What is Ben doing?

No. It's too confusing. Use either full BTC or satoshis (if BTC becomes much more valuable in fiat).

I typically denote amounts in BTC, mBTC and µBTC, like so:

6.72 µBTC
67.20 µBTC
672 µBTC
6.72 mBTC
67.20 mBTC
672 mBTC
6.72 BTC
67.20 BTC
672 BTC
6.72 kBTC
67.20 kBTC
672 kBTC
6.72 MBTC

(Most of these are hypothetical! I have never had the opportunity to ask for 6.72 µBTC or 6.72 MBTC in payment for anything.)

How is this confusing? We already deal with different units in the grocery store, grams, hectograms, kilograms. Plus, we practically already do with currency as well: "50 bucks", "50 grand", "50 million" (crore, lakh, whatever). The only question, really, is what to call the units, in speech, in different languages. And that, hopefully, will be decided by actual usage. Plus there will seldom be any reason to call them anything at all. A factor of 1000 between units is quite enough for any misunderstandings in familiar situations to be impossible. Of course, during the volatility stage this will be quite another matter. At any rate, any ideas with more than two syllables are ridiculously implausible: thinking that people will go around saying "That'll be 12 millibitcoin" (or "millibit" or "millicoin") is like thinking they would go around saying "That'll be 12 pounds sterling".

And saying "use either full BTC or satoshis" is like saying "mark all household scales in either tonnes or milligrams, and only allow these units in recipes".

Wait… was it 0.00004 tonnes of butter for the pancakes, or was it 0.0004?

Edit: by the way, speaking of butter, it is sold today (at one store in one country) at around 11.60 BTC/t, or at around 11.60 mBTC/kg. When will a bitcoin buy you a full tonne of butter?

If you want to use Satoshi as a base unit, then it should at least reach $0.01 in value. And for that, the BTC should cross $1,000,000 mark.

$0.01 = 122.6 indonesian rupiah

While the system is set, I do agree .002657 of something isn't very attractive to the general public.  And yes, it does matter.  Look at the stock market.  People -think- Apple or Google is more expensive than say JNJ because its price is ~10x of what JNJ is.  Technically speaking, JNJ is slightly more expensive than Apple, less then Google in "real life" (based on P/E). 

It's the reverse for XBT.  Someone buying 10mBTC "feels" a lot better since they own 10 of something.  Yes, in real life they don't.  They want to own more.

mbtc is the biggest fail ever. I hate that "don't panic" sign on bitcoinity. Thank goodness non of the other sites adopted it.

I love that Bitcoinity took the mBTC jump. Time for the others to follow suit IMO.

I prefer to just use "B-notation" (similar to scientific / e-notation except we drop the negative sign and prefix with "XB"). With 3 characters, you can efficiently represent just about any fraction of bitcoins.

5 BTC = 5 XB0
5 mBTC = 5 XB3
5 uBTC = 5 XB6
5 satoshis = 5 XB8

... if you ever need to use more precision than satoshis (if the protocol is adjusted to support it), you can represent that without getting into ridiculous naming territory (e.g., XB9).

It's also a lot clearer for those less familiar with metric naming conventions/abbreviations ("wait, does the 'm' in mBTC mean 'milli' or 'micro'? What's with the 'u' in 'uBTC'? If it should really be 'μ', then why don't we use that?"). I know- for the tech savvy, the whole "mBTC, uBTC, satoshi..." thing makes sense, but I really think "B-notation" would make a lot more sense to the general public - people don't even have to understand scientific notation. You just know that lower XB- numbers are bigger (plenty of measurement standards work this way already).


Thoughts? Who's with me on this?

Honestly I think this is even more confusing than the mBTC, etc.  BTC really isn't the official Bitcoin acronym, but since its been used since the beginning, its probably the most popular.  XBT is the "official" on currency converters since they are counting it as a sovereign currency, anything starting with an X.

Don't compare with the Indonesian Rupiah. It is not among the major world currencies. If you want, you can compare with the Japanese Yen. 1 JPY = $0.01, I think.

Can you explain to me how using "XB3" is more confusing than "mBTC"? It's shorter, doesn't require case sensitivity to make sense, and if we deal at that level for any significant amount of time, it would become just as common to see "XB3" as "mBTC". You don't really have to understand the meaning, though I'm not sure how the concept of "3 decimal places" is really that far out for people to understand if they want to know. Plus, when the value climbs to the point where it makes more sense to deal with XB6, then it's a quick, consistent change with no confusion.

Still, I'd love to hear some specific, concrete arguments against the use of the proposed "B-notation" system.

Only One:  It is not really known already.  Metric prefixes are known.  Common measures are 'millimeter', 'milligram', 'microgram'.  The first can be found on rulers outside of the USA and the later on most medicine bottles.

sdp

Exactly.  It's like trying to introduce a new system into an already established system.  People aren't familiar with the numbers.  I don't disagree that essentially it makes sense and people can learn it.  But why try to reinvent the wheel?  We (well, most outside US, lol), know the metric system already and it's fairly easy to use and implement.

Yes, the metric system is widely used, and so is scientific notation.

How many currencies do you normally deal with that use the metric system? "How many centi-dollars is that?"  ;)
Admittedly, I'm not aware of any currencies that currently use a form of scientific notation either, but that's the point. We're working with something new here, so why not think outside the box? Why limit ourselves to a naming system that is less efficient and often confusing for newcomers (if you don't think there's any confusion over mBTC, uBTC, etc, then why do these threads keep popping up)?

One of the main reasons I see "B-notation" as a better system is that there wouldn't be such a psychological jump in moving to smaller or bigger denominations as needed. In Bitcoin software, you'd see a nice consistent list of options for denominations: "XB0, XB3, XB6...". You see something reported in XB6 but you're more familiar dealing in XB3? It's so much easier to see there's a difference of 3 decimals there instead of mentally resolving "m" to 1/1000 and "u" to 1/1,000,000 in your head before arriving at the conclusion that the conversion is a factor of 1000.

You dont need to say that, ya just say  "here ya QR Code mate, You scan it cause its your shout"

I can even see a "split bill into X equal parts" being a fairly standard feature on the bitcoin terminal of restaurant staff quite early into widespread acceptance, should we ever get there.

m is not the solution, because a mBTC can only be split in 100 000 units. How would you define dust?

It does not solve the problem, this is a ridiculous idea. What is needed is a 1:100 split so that everyone owns 100x more BTC. The granularity would remain as-is, 1/100 000 000 and the new BTC would be around 4,50$ which makes it a lot easier to use.

In the coming years further splits could ensure that BTC keeps a reasonable ratio to USD, as well as maintaining a sufficient supply of BTC for everyone to utilize for payments - while preserving the value of existing wallets.

Splits make stocks optically cheaper which is good to attract new buyers, same here

If this is NOT done, it will promote the migration of value into altcoins that are less "fractional"

mBTC will be popular in future, in year or two... now price is too small to this be that important

One mBTC is currently worth about 46 cents. That doesn't sound unreasonable.

My vote is for Satoshis. In fact, previous to ask myself this kind of stuff, i was speaking in satoshis all the way while evangelizing friends :-) And yes, i do believe as well that eventually a satoshi can reach a tenth or a hundredth of us dollar cent. In the new multi-quantified internet, the 100ths of a cent will be counted. Bonus for logging, for spending time on a web, for word written... Dunno how to say it, i simply envision this too clearly.

Are there any good reasons we can't just use Satoshi's for smaller? mbits are ok ish but only a bandaid solution; some of the suggested alternative nomenclatures are just confusing.

In general people are used to thinking in higher (123,456) rather than lower (BTC0.000123456) orders of magnitude; and people actually like to talk higher orders "I just tipped ten k" vs "I just tipped point zero zero zero zero zero one" (and yes lower order is very prone to mistake). In addition, the Bitcoin system is already programmed in satoshi's so it would just require in some cases different display formatting.

There was a serious suggestion on the development mailing list for wallet developers to standardise on microbitcoins (uBTC, 0.000001, 100 satoshi each) on the basis that if we go to milli- now we will only have to go to micro- later anyway, and it would be better to only have one transition:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/52853D8A.6010501%40monetize.io/#msg31639713

Also that unless the number of digits were increased in the protocol, displaying in uBTC would mean a maximum of two decimal places, which some people find easier to comprehend.

However it seems that the latest round of releases for various wallets chose to standardise on mBTC by default, and uBTC proponents were not heeded.

I voted for yes, when the BTC prices go higher than $1000, for obvious reason of pricing things in less awkward way; for example pricing a sandwich for 1 mBTC instead of 0.001 BTC.
Until then I'm good with BTC. And frankly, I really like the way it sounds : 1 BTC = 850 $ !!!  Makes the dollar look so puny ;D

Thanks for your reply.  Agree microbits is an improvement, but I think we need a change equivalent to going from using ip addresses to domain names if we want to see bitcoin used where it can most benefit people. The unix gurus/CS guys etc seem comfortable with the status quo but they really need to put on the 'common man's hat' and think again; people like to and can think in big numbers, not microscopically small ones.

---

Yes BTC1 = $850 sounds good, but how does having 100 million sound?  :)

If we take the example of a purchase of a $3 cup of coffee with today's prices, then it would look like either:

• BTC0.00660778 or;
• mBTC6.60778 or;
• uBTC6,607.78

Out of those, the microbitcoin one does look quite appealing due to the limit of two decimal places. The mobile wallet could of course help the millibitcoin situation by emphasising the significant digits and showing USD equivalent, e.g.:


If we imagine a world where bitcoin is worth 10 times as much (more likely if bitcoin is much more widespread?) then it's more like:

• BTC0.00066078 or;
• mBTC0.66078 or;
• uBTC660.78

I'm still really liking the microbitcoin approach here. 660.78 reads fairly easily compared to 0.66078, even with user interface assistance.

So anyway, I do agree with you but I do think standardisation amongst wallet developers will come; when it does I would probably prefer microbitcoins depending on what the typical exchange rate is.

so, if the uBTC as a unit,  1 Satoshi = 0.01 uBTC, I think it is fit for financially. so, we suggest Bitcoin may change its unit to uBTC.

Bitcoin's unit is already the µBTC. µBTC and mBTC are both subdivisions of BTC. They are available as options in the Bitcoin-QT client.

Changing to µBTC simply requires you to decide to make the change.

and what will change if we start using mBTC as the standard denomination?

Nothing; it's a wallet / software / usability issue.

Don't underestimate the effect that user interface design can have though.

i look at those numbers and shudder at the thought of spending even 0.0006 for a "cup of cofffee"

coffee is worth only 0.0000005 BTC look it up

Bit Currency has a more universal sound to it, therefore, would be more universally accepted. The title of something gives the first impression, and we all know the power of first impressions.

yes, that's a big part of the problem, people get lost amongst the zeroes. The average joe 6pak would rather not save a few % than have to struggle with this.

yeah I gotta start learning this too, is kinda confusing at time, cause I got so used to just using btc and decimals

who knows' for that to happen ... but it's very possible that we achieve

1 mBTC = 0.001 BTC right???

For example...

239,26 mBTC = 0.23926 BTC ??

Yes that's correct.

thx :)