|
Title: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: grau on May 31, 2013, 05:38:28 PM PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTE
Currencies have popular names like Yen, Dollar and standard names like JPY, USD. This is not about renaming Bitcoin, but to define a unit for application's UI and database to enhance compatibility and ease of use to help adoption. It is not about us old Bitcoiners, who are used to Bitcoins' world, but newcomer and the rest of financial software infrastructure. Alternatives: 1. BTC: Means: 1 BTC = 100,000,000 satoshis. For: We got used to it. Against: Became a pain for small payments since a value of 1 USD is now just about 0.0077 BTC and transaction dust limit is 0.000054. BTC ISO currency code is actually already taken by Bhutan. 2. mBTC and uBTC Means: 1 BTC = 1000 mBTC, 1mBTC = 1000 uBTC, 1mBTC = 100,000 satoshis, 1uBTC = 100 satoshis. For: Known idea since long. Against: Complex for newcomer and non-engineers, not 3 capital letters (not ISO), 5 digits precision needed for mBTC in storage. 3. XBT Means: 1 XBT = 100 satoshi. For: Traditional currencies are dividable by 100 (and not more), therefore virtually none of existing financial databases support currency columns with higher precision, further existing financial software uses 3 capital letter ISO standard code for a currency. This is why it is suggested that the unit should be: 1 XBT = 100 satoshi that also leads to 1 Bitcoin = 1 million XBT The notation is handy since: 1,234,567.89 XBT = 1.2 Bitcoin or 1,234 mBTC or 1,234,567 uBTC The thousand separator helps you to read the other units if you prefer them too. XBT is actually uBTC with an ISO name. It is XBT because X is used in ISO for supranational currencies and commodities and BT is free. Against: Let us know. 4. None of the above Please suggest an other alternative only if you have arguments other than your personal taste to support it and then elaborate. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: dillpicklechips on May 31, 2013, 05:50:34 PM I kind of like bitcent. cBTC. 1 bitcent = 0.01 BTC.
Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: grau on May 31, 2013, 05:52:53 PM I kind of like bitcent. cBTC. 1 bitcent = 0.01 BTC. OK, you kinda like it. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: dillpicklechips on May 31, 2013, 05:54:06 PM I kind of like bitcent. cBTC. 1 bitcent = 0.01 BTC. OK, you kinda like it. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: justusranvier on May 31, 2013, 05:57:30 PM 3. XBT I still personally prefer the idea of using the BTC currency code with or without ISO's permission but this is a compelling argument, especially the part about legacy financial software. I voted for XBT.Means: 1 XBT = 100 satoshi. For: Traditional currencies are dividable by 100 (and not more), therefore virtually none of existing financial databases support currency columns with higher precision, further existing financial software uses 3 capital letter ISO standard code for a currency. This is why it is suggested that the unit should be: 1 XBT = 100 satoshi that also leads to 1 Bitcoin = 1 million XBT The notation is handy since: 1,234,567.89 XBT = 1.2 Bitcoin or 1,234 mBTC or 1,234,567 uBTC The thousand separator helps you to read the other units if you prefer them too. XBT is actually uBTC with an ISO name. It is XBT because X is used in ISO for supranational currencies and commodities and BT is free. Against: Let us know. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Razick on May 31, 2013, 06:08:53 PM I definetly support a move. Originally, as you can tell by my recent thread on the subject, I supported mBTC, but Grau has me convinced. The large numbers will be annoying at first, but as the exchange rate grows as I beleive this will help it do, that problem will seize to be one.
Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: austonst on May 31, 2013, 06:31:51 PM We already have multiple threads discussing this exact same topic. I guess the poll is new, but let's all keep in mind that there's a lot of other threads to read through for finding thorough discussion. I guess I'll reiterate what I said earlier (more complete post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220322.msg2330960#msg2330960 )
I voted for none of the above. Using BTC for everything is crazy, and "BTC" should probably get phased out in favor of something more ISO compliant. Though, to defend alternative 2 and metric in general, is it really all that complex for newcomers and non-engineers? Are we not already comfortable referring to weights in kilograms and distances in kilometers and millimeters? We still should solve ISO compliance and database storage, though. Bitcoin should try to conform to published standards, so I support a change to XBT, but I do not agree with XBT's re-denomination to µBTC. I do not believe it is the burden of Bitcoin to work with current financial software. There are two ways databases can support current BTC usage. 1) Databases themselves can be changed. Their precision can be increased and 3-character boxes can be changed to have 4 (I wouldn't be surprised if many systems already have support for more characters), or to ease transition, a new table could be added to store a metric prefix for each listed currency. With existing currencies, not much would have to change. Let's keep in mind that Bitcoin is not the only new currency to be growing. What if Litecoin, along with many of the others, all began being listed in databases? Financial systems would have to adapt to support the variety of names, abbreviations, and denominations. Even the ISO standards should probably be adjusted in the future to accommodate the now common idea of non-national currencies. 2) In case for some reason the databases cannot be modified, we can use an abstraction layer between the database and the presentation. Already, very few end users are going to be typing in straight-up SQL to pull from a database; there's always some sort of software that performs the query, parses it, and displays it in a nice way to the user. Why not have the database store an entry labeled BTC, but storing an amount of µBTC? Whatever software parses the information can present it to the user in any way they want: BTC, mBTC, µBTC, etc. This would really only be a temporary solution until the software itself changes to support the wide variety of currencies that are emerging. So the way I see it, grau's XBT causes a good thing (ISO compliance) and a not-so-good thing (unnecessary re-denomination). What benefits would we get from denominating XBT as µBTC, aside from compatability with outdated databases (which I don't see as an issue)? With the current exchange rate, we'd probably want to use kXBT anyway so that 1 USD = 7.7 kXBT. Why not go for the ISO compliance without the unnecessary re-denomination? Let's have XBT = BTC, use the metric system which we all are comfortable with, and be done with it. We can still use mBTC (mXBT) and µBTC (µXBT) for the handy comma separators. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Razick on May 31, 2013, 06:38:48 PM We already have multiple threads discussing this exact same topic. I guess the poll is new, but let's all keep in mind that there's a lot of other threads to read through for finding thorough discussion. I guess I'll reiterate what I said earlier (more complete post at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220322.msg2330960#msg2330960 ) I voted for none of the above. Using BTC for everything is crazy, and while metric is nice, BTC should probably get phased out in favor of something more ISO compliant. Though, to defend alternative 2 and metric in general, is it really all that complex for newcomers and non-engineers? Are we not already comfortable referring to weights in kilograms and distances in kilometers and millimeters? We still should solve ISO compliance and database storage, though. Bitcoin should try to conform to published standards, so I support a change to XBT, but I do not agree with XBT's re-denomination to µBTC. I do not believe it is the burden of Bitcoin to work with current financial software. There are two ways databases can support current BTC usage. 1) Databases themselves can be changed. Their precision can be increased and 3-character boxes can be changed to have 4 (I wouldn't be surprised if many systems already have support for more characters), or to ease transition, a new table could be added to store a metric prefix for each listed currency. With existing currencies, not much would have to change. Let's keep in mind that Bitcoin is not the only new currency to be growing. What if Litecoin, along with many of the others, all began being listed in databases? Financial systems would have to adapt to support the variety of names, abbreviations, and denominations. Even the ISO standards should probably be adjusted in the future to accommodate the now common idea of non-national currencies. 2) In case for some reason the databases cannot be modified, we can use an abstraction layer between the database and the presentation. Already, very few end users are going to be typing in straight-up SQL to pull from a database; there's always some sort of software that performs the query, parses it, and displays it in a nice way to the user. Why not have the database store an entry labeled BTC, but storing an amount of µBTC? Whatever software parses the information can present it to the user in any way they want: BTC, mBTC, µBTC, etc. This would really only be a temporary solution until the software itself changes to support the wide variety of currencies that are emerging. So the way I see it, grau's XBT causes a good thing (ISO compliance) and a not-so-good thing (unnecessary re-denomination). What benefits would we get from denominating XBT as µBTC, aside from compatability with outdated databases (which I don't see as an issue)? With the current exchange rate, we'd probably want to use kXBT anyway so that 1 USD = 7.7 kXBT. Why not go for the ISO compliance without the unnecessary re-denomination? Let's have XBT = BTC, use the metric system which we all are comfortable with, and be done with it. We can still use mBTC (mXBT) and µBTC (µXBT) for the handy comma separators. I agree with most of what you are saying, but I definetly think mBTC at least (or mXBT) should be the PRIMARY denomination. The thing I like about re-denomination though is not having to use those unwieldy prefixes. What naturally follows then, is that IF XBT was to be anything but full BTCs, it should be uBTC so that we never have to move again. mBTC may be enough, but I'm not sure. Also, it should not be lower than uBTC so we can still have to two-place precision divisibility. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: wachtwoord on May 31, 2013, 06:41:43 PM Against: Complex for newcomer and non-engineers Come on. This cannot be complex for anyone with a high school diploma .... Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: kakobrekla on May 31, 2013, 06:43:53 PM Here is what we use 1 drop of bitcoins = 1 satoshi = 0.00001 mBTC = 0.00000001 BTC 1 teaspoon of bitcoins = 120 satoshi = 0.0012 mBTC = 0.00000120 BTC 1 dessertspoon of bitcoins = 240 satoshi = 0.0024 mBTC = 0.00000240 BTC 1 tablespoon of bitcoins = 360 satoshi = 0.0036 mBTC = 0.00000360 BTC 1 cup of bitcoins = 5400 satoshi = 0.054 mBTC = 0.00005400 BTC 1 pint of bitcoins = 10800 satoshi = 0.108 mBTC = 0.00010800 BTC 1 quart of bitcoins = 21600 satoshi = 0.216 mBTC = 0.00021600 BTC 1 peck of (dry) bitcoins = 172800 satoshi = 1.728 mBTC = 0.00172800 BTC 1 hand-full of bitcoins = 20736000 satoshi = 207.36 mBTC = 0.20736000 BTC 1 piggy bank of bitcoins = 44375040 satoshi = 443.7504 mBTC = 0.4437504 BTC 1 black leather case (german made) of bitcoins = 995328000 satoshi = 9953.28 mBTC = 9.95328 BTC 1 shovel of bitcoins = 2388787200 satoshi = 23887.87 mBTC = 23.88787 BTC 1 bag of bitcoins = 7882997760 satoshi = 78829.9776 mBTC = 78.8299776 BTC 1 wheelbarrow of bitcoins = 33108590592 satoshi = 331085.90592 mBTC = 331.08590592 BTC 1 double cherry truck of bitcoins = 960149127168 satoshi = 9601491.27168 mBTC = 9601.49127168 BTC mBTC conversion for tortilla. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: grau on May 31, 2013, 06:46:15 PM I do not believe it is the burden of Bitcoin to work with current financial software. There are two ways databases can support current BTC usage. 1) Databases themselves can be changed. .... 2) In case for some reason the databases cannot be modified, we can use an abstraction layer between the database and the presentation. .... You can not expect that all financial software is changed for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is revolutionary but NOT to accounting. It will not trigger a change there. The 8 digit precision is not yet a problem since a few companies really account for Bitcoin. Most just let BitPay convert it to USD, problem solved. Is that the way forward indefinitely? Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: grau on May 31, 2013, 06:48:32 PM Against: Complex for newcomer and non-engineers Come on. This cannot be complex for anyone with a high school diploma ....Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: austonst on May 31, 2013, 06:58:40 PM I agree with most of what you are saying, but I definetly think mBTC at least (or mXBT) should be the PRIMARY denomination. The thing I like about re-denomination though is not having to use those unwieldy prefixes. What naturally follows then, is that IF XBT was to be anything but full BTCs, it should be uBTC so that we never have to move again. mBTC may be enough, but I'm not sure. Also, it should not be lower than uBTC so we can still have to two-place precision divisibility. The whole point of talking about bitcoins in terms of BTC, mBTC, or µBTC is to ease communication, especially in person where it's hard to verbally say .0245 BTC. Our languages and methods of speaking numbers have reached a point where we are most comfortable speaking numbers with three to four digits to the left of the decimal place and two to the right of the decimal place. Most people would understand if I spoke 123.45 as "one hundred and twenty three point four five" or 432.25 as "four thirty two point twenty five". While we are more comfortable with speaking in the thousands than speaking in the thousandths with 54,321 as "fifty four thousand, three hundred and twenty one" compared to 2.1234 as "two and one thousand two hundred thirty four ten-thousandths", we still naturally gravitate towards discarding low decimal places and lowering the number as a whole. If 1 XBT = 1 µBTC were to be accepted as the standard today, many of the digits would be so insignificant that they would be ignored in verbal discussion. When we see something being sold for 4.25 USD, we'll usually tell our friends "It's four bucks", because cents are pretty worthless nowadays. Verbal discussions would instead use kiloXBT, or some slang derived from that. If my coffee is two dollars, or ~15,000 XBT, I'm pretty likely to pick up the slang and say "It's fifteen kilobits". Talking about larger purchases would be even more extreme (MXBT?). I guess what I'm saying is that right now, people would be comfortable referring to most amounts of bitcoins in the range between BTC and mBTC. Switching the digital representations to be based on 1 XBT = 1 µBTC would not remove the prefixes, just make people use different ones. If we're going to be using prefixes either way, why take the extra step of re-denominating? Moving around in verbal discussion between different prefixes may take some years for everyone to get used to, but it will be done, regardless of what the base unit is. We shouldn't fully change our means of referring to bitcoins just because some software will require some readjustment. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Stampbit on May 31, 2013, 07:12:42 PM Lets have a vote, how should we rearrange the chairs on the titanics raft? I vote for side by side instead of stacked.
Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Tacticat on May 31, 2013, 07:56:48 PM I have voted for other because, while I do like the idea of mBTC and uBTC I don't like how they sound or they are written.
From a communication standpoint it is very important that we do NOT try to redifine what a Bitcoin is. mBTC and uBTC are great because they are related to Bitcoin, but XBT is something entirely new. I do like XBT but it might be too much trouble to introduce and explain as it sets a new standard basic unit. The Bitcoin standard unit should always be the Bitcoin or BTC or XBC (or whatever). Smaller denominations: Given that the only problem I have with mBTC and uBTC is the way they are written and sound, I would propose the following: Millibit - mbit Microbit - ubit Officially known by their long names, they are pronounced as "embit" and "youbit" in their informal short names (two syllables only!) We do not need 10 different ISO names. One is enough and when we get it, it should belong to the Bitcoin which is still, technically, at the heart of the system. Take the Dollar for example: ISO: USD 1/10: dime 1/100: cent 1/1000: mill (it previously existed) We don't need a three letter code for each subdivision. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Mageant on May 31, 2013, 08:55:33 PM What I think will eventually happen if Bitcoin does go mainstream is that a millibitcoin (or microbitcoin) will become the new "bitcoin" and that a true bitcoin will become a "whole bitcoin".
I've already noticed some people saying they own X "whole bitcoins". Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: scintill on May 31, 2013, 09:03:49 PM Voted XBT. This was the most sensible argument I've heard. mBTC always seemed dumb to me; the only reason it kind of makes sense is that the price happens to be around $100 right now. The XBT value is a bit unwieldy for human consumption, but the argument for two decimal places and an ISO-compatible code are sound.
We should try to use microformats (http://microformats.org/wiki/currency) or something, so that (with a browser extension) the user can decide to display values in mBTC or whatever, or even convert to their native currency via exchange rate. Bitcoin clients that received payment requests via bitcoin: URI or whatever, can also display whatever the user wants. A browser extension might also decode values out of the bitcoin: URI and display them on the page. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: wachtwoord on May 31, 2013, 09:05:20 PM Against: Complex for newcomer and non-engineers Come on. This cannot be complex for anyone with a high school diploma ....That would make me sad :( Maybe it's different in the US because you (not sure if you are) use some system from medieval times instead of metrics, but everyone here should know as kilometer, meter, centimeter, millimeter and even micrometer are used in everyday life (well micrometer only on TV I guess). I would seriously expect the average 12 year-old to know this. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Razick on May 31, 2013, 09:28:09 PM Against: Complex for newcomer and non-engineers Come on. This cannot be complex for anyone with a high school diploma ....That would make me sad :( Maybe it's different in the US because you (not sure if you are) use some system from medieval times instead of metrics, but everyone here should know as kilometer, meter, centimeter, millimeter and even micrometer are used in everyday life (well micrometer only on TV I guess). I would seriously expect the average 12 year-old to know this. The metric system is taught in US schools nationwide, but it's not used in everyday life so some people forget it. Also, schools usually teach deci, centi and milli (on the fractional side) but not micro and nano. EDIT: The standard system is greatly loved here. The unfortunate thing is that some fields have a mix. Aviation for example uses feet, nautical and statute miles, knots, miles per hour, etc. but, of all things, chose the most useless aspect of the metric system, centigrade temperatures for measuring temperature. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Razick on May 31, 2013, 09:30:58 PM I have voted for other because, while I do like the idea of mBTC and uBTC I don't like how they sound or they are written. From a communication standpoint it is very important that we do NOT try to redifine what a Bitcoin is. mBTC and uBTC are great because they are related to Bitcoin, but XBT is something entirely new. I do like XBT but it might be too much trouble to introduce and explain as it sets a new standard basic unit. The Bitcoin standard unit should always be the Bitcoin or BTC or XBC (or whatever). Smaller denominations: Given that the only problem I have with mBTC and uBTC is the way they are written and sound, I would propose the following: Millibit - mbit Microbit - ubit Officially known by their long names, they are pronounced as "embit" and "youbit" in their informal short names (two syllables only!) We do not need 10 different ISO names. One is enough and when we get it, it should belong to the Bitcoin which is still, technically, at the heart of the system. Take the Dollar for example: ISO: USD 1/10: dime 1/100: cent 1/1000: mill (it previously existed) We don't need a three letter code for each subdivision. The mill still exists but is rarely used. There is no physical coin, but it's used in accounting and, interestingly enough, at gas stations. (Look at the sign next time you buy fuel) Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Peter Lambert on May 31, 2013, 09:39:07 PM Shoot, I voted XBT and then realized you are trying to change what XBT stands for. XBT should be 100 000 000 satoshis, it is an ISO compliant alternate to BTC.
For small values I like to use mB as the abbreviation for millibits. For places like exchanges they should use the XBT to fit in with USD and JPY and GBP and XAU. For websites selling small items they can use mB which is more casual and results in less leading zeros. You claim that traditional currencies are limited to two decimal places, but there are at least a couple currencies which use three decimal places. USD used to go to three decimal places but has been inflated to the point where the third place is no longer used and the second decimal place is pretty meaningless. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: ArticMine on May 31, 2013, 09:41:46 PM I suggested XBT for mBTC in another thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148229.msg1607892#msg1607892; however given the rise in the BTC / USD exchange rate XBT for µBTC so 1,000,000 XBT = 1 BTC or 100 satoshi = 1 XBT actually make even more sense.
The argument for XBT is ISO compatibility. The argument for the re-denomination is to have a unit of account that is more in line with most fiat currencies after allowing for some further appreciation in the BTC / USD exchange rate in the future. There are many precedents for currency re-denomination as a result of inflation and the same arguments do apply for a currency re-denomination as a result of deflation. I voted XBT for 100 satoshi. I do not support simply replacing BTC with XBT. Let us keep in mind that ISO-compatibility will only really matter if Bitcoin has more deflation. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: wachtwoord on May 31, 2013, 10:05:07 PM EDIT: The standard system is greatly loved here. The unfortunate thing is that some fields have a mix. Aviation for example uses feet, nautical and statute miles, knots, miles per hour, etc. but, of all things, chose the most useless aspect of the metric system, centigrade temperatures for measuring temperature. 1. Centrigrade isn't the SI standard it's Kelvin :) 2. Centigrade makes some sense as it's a simple displacement of the Kelvin temperature ([°C] = [K] − 273.15) to make 0 C the freezing point of water and 100 C the boiling point of water. Fahrenheit makes even less sense because it also requires a linear transformation ([°F] = [K] × 9⁄5 − 459.67) 3. Did you know the investor of Celcius was American and the inventor of Fahrenheit a Swede? (fun trivia) 4. The aviation standards don't seem to be universal either. Over the past years I've flown quite a lot and when flying with US Airlines or European airlines the unit of measures used to report height and speeds from the cockpit differs. I'm not sure what they use at the helm (though I'd advise SI standards, makes all calculations so much easier) Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Razick on May 31, 2013, 10:31:20 PM EDIT: The standard system is greatly loved here. The unfortunate thing is that some fields have a mix. Aviation for example uses feet, nautical and statute miles, knots, miles per hour, etc. but, of all things, chose the most useless aspect of the metric system, centigrade temperatures for measuring temperature. 1. Centrigrade isn't the SI standard it's Kelvin :) 2. Centigrade makes some sense as it's a simple displacement of the Kelvin temperature ([°C] = [K] − 273.15) to make 0 C the freezing point of water and 100 C the boiling point of water. Fahrenheit makes even less sense because it also requires a linear transformation ([°F] = [K] × 9⁄5 − 459.67) 3. Did you know the investor of Celcius was American and the inventor of Fahrenheit a Swede? (fun trivia) 4. The aviation standards don't seem to be universal either. Over the past years I've flown quite a lot and when flying with US Airlines or European airlines the unit of measures used to report height and speeds from the cockpit differs. I'm not sure what they use at the helm (though I'd advise SI standards, makes all calculations so much easier) 1. Kelvin is rarely used outside of specialized fields. 2. −459.67° F is absolute zero. Screw kelvin. ;) My point about Centigrade/Celsius is based on the fact that it's not that hard to remember 32 and 212. 3. Interesting. ;D I thought Fahrenheit was German. 4. I'm an American student pilot, but I think that the measurements we use here are ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) standards, and should be universal. Ie. Altitude would be expressed in feet and speed in knots globally. In the passenger area they are going to use what the passengers are used to. I think it's a matter of what you are used to, Standard is just so easy to me as I am sure Metric is to you. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: ArticMine on May 31, 2013, 10:46:50 PM EDIT: The standard system is greatly loved here. The unfortunate thing is that some fields have a mix. Aviation for example uses feet, nautical and statute miles, knots, miles per hour, etc. but, of all things, chose the most useless aspect of the metric system, centigrade temperatures for measuring temperature. 1. Centrigrade isn't the SI standard it's Kelvin :) 2. Centigrade makes some sense as it's a simple displacement of the Kelvin temperature ([°C] = [K] − 273.15) to make 0 C the freezing point of water and 100 C the boiling point of water. Fahrenheit makes even less sense because it also requires a linear transformation ([°F] = [K] × 9⁄5 − 459.67) 3. Did you know the investor of Celcius was American and the inventor of Fahrenheit a Swede? (fun trivia) 4. The aviation standards don't seem to be universal either. Over the past years I've flown quite a lot and when flying with US Airlines or European airlines the unit of measures used to report height and speeds from the cockpit differs. I'm not sure what they use at the helm (though I'd advise SI standards, makes all calculations so much easier) 1. Kelvin is rarely used outside of specialized fields. 2. −459.67° F is absolute zero. Screw kelvin. ;) My point about Centigrade/Celsius is based on the fact that it's not that hard to remember 32 and 212. 3. Interesting. ;D I thought Fahrenheit was German. 4. I'm an American student pilot, but I think that the measurements we use here are ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) standards, and should be universal. Ie. Altitude would be expressed in feet and speed in knots globally. In the passenger area they are going to use what the passengers are used to. I think it's a matter of what you are used to, Standard is just so easy to me as I am sure Metric is to you. Of course here in Canada we used to have to deal with the difference between an Imperial gallon (4.54609 liters) and a US gallon (3.78541 liters). When buying gas I like the Imperial gallon when selling gas I like the US gallon. After switching to metric in Canada this source of confusion and the potential for consumer fraud was eliminated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems) Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: firefop on May 31, 2013, 10:59:09 PM I would have voted "who do you think you are?" ... but it wasn't on the poll.
Seriously. People will call these units whatever they decide to call them. But a bitcoin is a bitcoin is a bitcoin... when we start talking about this issue I just want to roll my eyes. Just leave it base 10 - that's easy to to understand and who cares about ISO. Honestly, nobody cares - at all. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: dillpicklechips on June 01, 2013, 05:04:31 AM I think the free market will determine what the redomination should be naturally. It's not something that can be voted on and socially enforced. In my opinion the best source of what people want to use when sending BTC is to watch the Reddit Bitcoin tip bot. I'd love to watch the usage stats as time progresses.
Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: grau on June 01, 2013, 04:11:45 PM I would have voted "who do you think you are?" ... but it wasn't on the poll. Seriously. People will call these units whatever they decide to call them. But a bitcoin is a bitcoin is a bitcoin... when we start talking about this issue I just want to roll my eyes. Just leave it base 10 - that's easy to to understand and who cares about ISO. Honestly, nobody cares - at all. You are free to ignore both me and the standards until you do not have to deal with them. Let's do that. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Quicker_777 on June 09, 2013, 07:37:37 PM The naming convention and unit of measurement can be for larger than a fraction of the currency, but in general, the ordinary Joe will find it difficult to track down more than two levels of fractional currency. I give you the extinct "half-penny" as an example.
Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Peter Lambert on June 09, 2013, 08:12:31 PM The naming convention and unit of measurement can be for larger than a fraction of the currency, but in general, the ordinary Joe will find it difficult to track down more than two levels of fractional currency. I give you the extinct "half-penny" as an example. Half pennies were not discarded because three decimals are too hard, they were discarded because inflation made them worthless. Several of the middle eastern countries use three decimal places still today. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Quicker_777 on June 15, 2013, 02:55:28 PM The naming convention and unit of measurement can be for larger than a fraction of the currency, but in general, the ordinary Joe will find it difficult to track down more than two levels of fractional currency. I give you the extinct "half-penny" as an example. Half pennies were not discarded because three decimals are too hard, they were discarded because inflation made them worthless. Several of the middle eastern countries use three decimal places still today. I'm not saying the base currency unit should be the smallest denomination, I'm saying beyond two decimal places will be difficult for most folks. Three, maybe, but four and five? Uh-uh. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: btcusr on July 23, 2013, 02:38:35 AM Voting is not always a good idea..
Just go ahead and change it to XBT (100 satoshi). Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: elements on July 23, 2013, 05:53:52 AM If we had this discussion three years ago I would have voted XBT because it is true, that the X stands for supranational currencies in the ISO system. However, there have always been exceptions to the rule, the most recent and noteworthy one being the Euro which has the ISO code EUR instead of XEU which it should have following the rule.
Since BTC is a global currency there is no reason why there cannot be another 'exception'. Furthermore today there are thousands upon thousands of articles, blog entries, videos, gimmicks/gadgets, t-shirts and whatnot featuring BTC or the Bath symbol for Bitcoin. Even though I never really liked the idea of using the Bath symbol for bitcoin because it was already taken, today it is the de facto standard alongside BTC. Just because the dollar is getting worthless by the minute doesn't mean we have to rename it. Stay with BTC, the Bath symbol, and mBTC, uBTC and satoshis as sub denominations if you like (they are established and work). To get newbies and future newbies to learn about new symbols and new 'ISO' codes just makes an unnecessary fuss which will only confuse everyone. There is no good argument which would justify the potential confusion! And more confusion is the last thing Bitcoin (and all the many other alt-cryptos) need(s) right now. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Itcher on July 23, 2013, 07:03:37 AM Nr. 1
I think the eight digits after the point is one of the very greatest features of bitcoins. We shouldn't kill it. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: rudolfaxl on April 12, 2015, 12:51:16 PM redomination BTC to XBT is bad for bitcoin
Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: Grand_Voyageur on April 12, 2015, 01:05:52 PM I cast my vote for option 2 (mBTC and uBTC)!
It's both clear and simple. Anyone has to learn fiat money value and SI measures since they weren't coded into their brains; so, I think that learning that BTC is made of 1 BTC= 1000 mBTC, 1mBTC = 1000 uBTC, 1mBTC = 100,000 satoshis, 1uBTC = 100 satoshis isn't so bad. Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: janbrel on April 12, 2015, 01:45:35 PM I vote for none of the above because they all confused me and put me off using any service denominated in them. I think it finished coinedup when they started up mBTC markets because they just confused people.
Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: vm_mpn on April 12, 2015, 02:26:03 PM Do not overthink it... Beauty in the simplicity... Bitcoin and Bit are the only two denominations we need.
Title: Re: Redomination mBTC, XBT, do nothing Post by: unamis76 on April 12, 2015, 02:29:02 PM I voted BTC. I think both of the other two options are a bit difficult for newcomers and people knowing Bitcoin for the first time. It sure was more difficult to me fitting in mBTC and XBT than in BTC :D
But if we do have to change and adopt something that can be ISO compliant... Well, XBT would be the best option. |