Bitcoin Forum

To anyone who has working eyes and brains, it should be clear now that today, the only important factor for success of  a cryptocoin (or a non-cryptocoin like XRP) is, that it looks cheap. Just go on coinmarketcap; circulation upside down. Result: higher supply coins get all the profit. Cardano, XLM, XRP, Iota, et cetera.

The reason for this is: in the early days crypto was mainly used by smart people, and smart people understand that something that is rare, should cost more than something that is abundant.

But stupid people (or inexperienced kids) only look at price. It is only too human. Now crypto is getting mainstream, average IQ has dropped like an upside-down chart of XRP or XLM.

https://www.ccn.com/south-korean-students-flock-to-cryptocurrency-despite-establishments-warnings/

Young people are gravitating to altcoins that trade at lower values than bitcoin, according to analysts

Only solution is splitting. Stocks do it all the time.

I propose a hardfork, 1 BTC (old) = 1000 BTC (new)  8)

It would do more for the success of Bitcoin, than Segwit and all the other shit combined, just this one thing!

It would also make it more practical for smaller payments....

I don't think this would solve the problem as there have already been some hardforks which were been done for the same purposes. The  bitcoin cash and segwit both wanted to clear the issues with bitcoin but yet BTC is still working as it is. All the forked coins has turned into altcoins with BTC running the same way as it was but with more difficulties. So if at all BTC is forked again the forked coin will still be called another altcoin. There has to be a solution to solve with BTC itself and forking wont do that job. Lets see how good the LN helps BTC.

You and I have very different definitions of the word "success".


I actually agree with you on this.  However, it might cause a lot of confusion if some people know about the split and some don't.  We can avoid that problem by changing the name slightly on the split coin.

Lets call the split version "millibitcoin", or we can use a slang name for it like "millies".

The great thing about it is we can do this without even needing a code fork!  We can do it today, right now!  Anyone that wants it to happen can just immediately start talking in terms of "millies" and everyone will quickly adapt to knowing that they can multiply any bitcoin amount by 1000 to know how many "millies" to send.

I think a hard fork split would be a stupid move. The most confusing thing I notice most every day people are challenged with is the decimal place. When I tell random people who have no clue what bitcoin is that I have 1 millionth of a bitcoin they're like wtf?

I would simply propose moving the decimal so 21,000,000.00000000 becomes 21,000,000,000,000.00

Technically the maximum number of bitcoin does not change, just how you read it. 21 million becomes 21 trillion which at this point is about the amount of the US debt lol...

Making it easier for everyday people to understand is ultimately going to make it easier for mass adoption :) Anywho thats just my two sense lol

Agreeing with you here as there's no point of seeing Bitcoin at 100k or 1M while the likes of XRP and IOTA can simply stay at a small figure value and still dominate the market cap. Might even see XRP overtaking BTC in market cap over the next few years as limited supply means everything relying on the price.


Stocks are completely different from digital currencies. You're referring Bitcoin as an investment here while it is just a currency for most of the part. Hard forking like that would cause a drastic dip in the price even after dividing it by 1000 as it would set off panic and isn't something the core would think about.

This made me laugh because he actually has a point.. I've spoken to someone complaining about how the barrier to entry for Bitcoin was so high (they legitimately thought they had to buy "a Bitcoin" to invest). There have been a number of other conversations I've had with people wondering how people can keep buying Bitcoin when they cost so much to buy. They all look legitimately surprised when I tell them you can buy 1/1000th or even 1/1,000,000th of a bitcoin if you really wanted to.. it may take a while for people to learn but I'm sure eventually the public will catch on... maybe

I will disagree with you on the bold part of your message in the following ways

1. You don't have to go on the insultive side in trying to pass your message across as you can do in a well matured way than going that route of insulting as if you are the most intelligent in the whole community.

2. The factor you noted as the only important in the success of a crypto coin is being cheap is grossly wrong because a lot of coin way below certain amount gets interest lost which then leads to it being delisted from several exchange sites. Beyond being cheap other factors are very key.

3. People who only look that the price should not be categorised as being stupid rather inexperienced as you have used because whether we like it or not they have contributed to the growth of bitcoin and concluding to move to other coins because its cheap, that is not the sole purpose they are actually doing it with the hope that it will be more valuable tomorrow in which they can then make maximum profit.

This has already happened.  You can start using the new terms immediately, and some wallets even support it already.

In order to avoid confusion (so that people wouldn't have to ask if you mean the "old 1 bitcoin amount or the new 1 bitcoin amount"), it was given a slightly new name.

If you want to use the type of bitcoins where there are now 21,000,000,000,000.00 of them, then you just need to find a wallet that supports the new name "microbitcoin".  Since the Scientific Symbol for "micro" is "µ" this will often be written as µBTC (so that it doesn't get confused with the old BTC amounts).

This change is 100% compatible with the old bitcoin network and with all old bitcoin wallets.  It is not an "altcoin" and it is not a forked blockchain.  All Bitcoin wallets are able to receive funds that are sent as µBTC amounts.  They will automatically convert to BTC amounts in wallets that do not yet fully support displaying amounts as µBTC.

Furthermore, this new representation with the moved decimal point comes with a catchy nickname.  Just like people often call a $1 bill a "greenback" or a $5 bill a "Lincoln", I've heard people refering to this new Bitcoin amount with the moved decimal point as "Mike's" (short for microbitcoin!).

So, find yourself a wallet that supports the moved decimal point, send all of your bitcoins there, and you can immediately start sending and receiving Mikes.

0.00000500 BTC = 5 µBTC (also known as 5 Mikes).

1 BTC = 1,000,000 µBTC (also known as a million Mikes).

It's already been done.  See my post above.

It's actually been done twice.

The decimal point was moved 3 places to the right, and the amount was given a great new name "millibitcoin" often written as mBTC.  This is 100% compatible with the current BTC network, and ALL bitcoin wallets can accept amounts that are sent as mBTC (if the receiving wallet doesn't yet have the mBTC naming convention built in, the network will AUTOMATICALLY convert the amount from mBTC to BTC as they are received in the wallet (with no exchange fees EVER!).  There is a new nickname that is already catching on for this new amount, "Millies".

So:

0.001 BTC can already be used in some wallets as 1 millibitcoin  (often written as 1 mBTC) and can be called 1 Millie!

1 BTC can already be used in some wallets as 1,000 millibitcoin  (often written as 1,000 mBTC) and can be called 1 thousand Millies!

Then the decimal was moved 3 MORE places to the right, and the the amount was given a great new name "microbitcoin" often written as µBTC.  This is 100% compatible with the current BTC network, and ALL bitcoin wallets can accept amounts that are sent as µBTC (if the receiving wallet doesn't yet have the µBTC naming convention built in, the network will AUTOMATICALLY convert the amount from µBTC to BTC as they are received in the wallet (with no exchange fees EVER!).  There is a new nickname that is already catching on for this new amount, "Mikes".

So:

0.000001 BTC can already be used in some wallets as 1 microbitcoin (often written as 1 µBTC) and can be called 1 Mike!

0.001 BTC can already be used in some wallets as 1,000 microbitcoin  (often written as 1,000 µBTC) and can be called 1 thousand Mikes!

1 BTC can already be used in some wallets as 1,000,000 microbitcoin  (often written as 1,000,000 µBTC) and can be called 1 million Mikes!

Exactly!

The system already had a 1000:1 split and then another 1000:1 split after that.  People just aren't aware of it yet, and they aren't familliar with the new naming convention for the split amounts.

If you want to buy 1/1000th of a bitcoin, then you are buying from the first split.  These are called millibitcoin (often written as mBTC), and a nickname is catching on: "Millies".  So, if you want 5 of the 1:1000 split coins, then you want 5 Millies!.  At an exchange rate of $16300 per BTC that works out to an exchange rate of only $16.30 per Millie!

If you want to buy the 1/1,000,000th of a bitcoin, then you are buying from the second split.  These are called microbitcoin (often written as µBTC since the scientific symbol for micro is µ), and a nickname is catching on: "Mikes".  So, if you want 5 of the 1:1,000,000 split coins, then you want 5 Mikes!.  At an exchange rate of $16300 per BTC that works out to an exchange rate of ONLY $0.0163 per Mike!  (just a bit more than a penny-and-a-half)!!!

I have seen this coming for awhile now.  When I first started BTC, buying 3-5 BTC was considered more like a "change" transaction (small annoyance amount).  Now we are at the point where a full coin or more is only exchanged by a small percentage of transactions and its getting more and more scarce.  The concerns I have as I watch this unfold or for how transaction expenses are going to play out.  Nobody in the game over the long haul is going to get confused over Mike's, millies, you insert the new buzzword name here, etc.....   The reality regardless of the "name" is that we are transacting with a fraction of a coin and now the big consideration is how much is the cost to move that fraction to the new receiving address in the blockchain?  As it stands I am using BTC for my longterm holdings but short term I use BCH because transactions move for "cheap" and when you are talking about a hundred dollar item that is a tiny BTC fraction.  I am not a BCH lover or anything.  I was lucky enough to score a "free" pile of them by having BTC in the chain before the split.  Figure I may as well use BCH cheap transactions for little stuff and wait and watch how this all goes.

The worst news is, all people are thinking that the price or the value of the bitcoin will only keep rising. Most of the people involved in bitcoin sees Bitcoins as a way of investment. The forget that the primary characteristic of bitcoin is that it's a currency, not a property or asset. And those people still use fiat money if they want to spend their money. In order to get that fiat money they sell their bitcoins. They don't use the bitcoins for buying things (of course it's not possible every time). We witness the nature of the fall in last December which indicates that bitcoin doesn't follow a constant upward trend.

The providers of wallet software will learn to adjust the UI so it displays a denomination by default that is appropriate to their users. The Satoshi is a sufficiently small unit for the foreseeable future (even if BTC were $1,000,000.00 each a Satoshi would be $.01). The market reporting and exchanges will adjust similarly. We can help them along by talking about "mBTC" amongst ourselves and in public, rather than BTC. We can make suggestions to the exchanges, publications and UI developers as well, but they will find their way even if we don't push.

I support the proposed hardfork of 1 BTC (old or legacy) = 1000 BTC (new) which will spicy up the smaller payment issue than the other forks SegWit etc. But I wonder when such fork will end cause another 3 forks will happen this January. Meanwhile, in other to achieve the proposed hardfork the bitcoin transaction stuck/delay need to be fix.

I propose to just change the units in your wallet: 1 BTC now = 1000 mBTC now. And that is exactly what I've been doing since I started using Bitcoin (almost 3 years ago). When I started, one base unit was worth $0.20, now it's $16.40.
I find it much more convenient to have units worth about the same as a dollar/euro, but we can't keep forking Bitcoin every time it goes up in value. Some shitforks are already doing this, but that doesn't make it Bitcoin.

The only thing I don't like, is how "millibitcoin" sounds when I say it out loud. It's too long and not nearly as catchy as "Bitcoin".
During my time as a Mod at Rollin.io, I've seen many people ask questions like: "how many mBTC is a BTC?". I don't know if they're just dumb, uneducated, or used to imperial units, as to me it's just common sense to use SI-units.

That still doesn't sound right to me.

As irrational as it is, I've heard it from several people too: "I'll buy some Verge, just for fun, because it's so cheap". People who say this don't realize the total supply is 1000 times bigger than with Bitcoin.
Of course it's not rational, but most people aren't rational when it comes to money.

I think leopard2's point is that all exchanges call it "Bitcoin", they don't list smaller units than that.
The Byteball-thread has a lot of discussion about changing the unit from GBYTE ($870) to MBYTE ($0.87). I used to think this doesn't matter, but I've come to realize it does matter. Changing the units in my own wallet doesn't change how it's listed and traded.

On the other hand, how nice is it that 1 Bitcoin has a very large value, and that value is (most of the time) going up? An average car: 2 Bitcoins! Maybe somewhere in the future we can say the same about a house: just 2 Bitcoins!
That makes Bitcoins more like gold bars: everybody knows a gold bar is expensive, and everybody knows you can buy gold in smaller portions than big bars.

How about "millibits".  That's short.  It's rather catchy, and (at least to someone that speaks english with a Chicago accent) it rolls of the tongue nicely.

I'm open to other slang terms as well. My point is that people have been using slang terms for money for centuries.  We don't HAVE to use the formal name if we don't like how the formal name sounds when we say it out loud.

It sounds good, but "bits" is already in use for "100 Satoshis". That makes 1 millibit 0.000000001BTC. Kilobits could actually work, it has the the same as millibitcoin, but sounds better.

I've NEVER liked that and have actively ignored it, discouraged it's use, and attempted to kill it off.

I realize I'm probably fighting a losing battle here, it's difficult to unscramble the egg, but I'm still hoping that I can get enough newbies and others that aren't yet familliar with the "bits" term to start using millibits, millies, millibitcoins, etc so that the term "bits" as 100 Satoshis begins to sound awkward and wrong to a significant percentage of users someday.  At best perhaps I can hope that it will become a regional Chicagoland thing.

Are you pulling my leg?!

Using millibitcoin or whatever, is not going to change anything

On CMC you must have a lot of units, but people look at the full units. What you are saying is, sell gold by counting atoms to make it look cheaper, no, this won't work if everybody else is selling copper, sand or dogcrap by the ounce.

Using mikes or millies is not a solution

The solution is splitting 21 000 000 BTC (with 1e8 satoshis divisbilty) into 21 000 000 000 BTC (with 1e8 satoshis divisibility)

Block reward would then be 12500 BTC per block, fees? Good question. Perhaps such a split could help reducing fees too.

Reducing the divisibility leads to rounding issues, fee issues, dust issues and fucking no one will fall for that anyways...people do not want to pay 16000 for 1 BTC, and they won't pay 16 for a millie because they know it is 0.001 BTC. People may be stupid, but not THAT stupid.

Mark my words, if such a split is not done, it is only a matter of time until crap like XRP is on top of CMC

And yes, I define success = ranking in CMC, just like 99.99% of earthlings  ;D

Pretty sure, just announcing such a Bitcoin "stock split" would result in 25000+ prices. Even Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has done it (B series) because they know that a share that costs several 10 000$ are not attractive to retail investors!

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

THIS!!!!!!

Byteball is brilliant, beats XRP in each and every way

Why is XRP number 2? Why is Byteball not over 100 000$ per GBYTE? Circulation wise it should be.

It is not, because I am right and the "mBTC" bullcrap is not working. Stellar, Cardano, Iota, Bytecoin, Doge, so many examples proving my point....

A Satoshi is a small unit. Why not use Bitcoin to describe the currency ( like Sterling or Renminbi), and Satoshi as the unit ( like Pound or Yuan).

LOL  ;D

yes that would help beating XRP but Bitcoin is not meant to function atomically. Satoshis are there so you have almost no rounding errors and high precision when converting fiat/altcoin into Bitcoin.

Also I found that extremely large circulations are problematic because people have difficulties reading such numbers. I believe anything beyond a trillion is too high. There are

21 000 000 000 000 00 satoshis, this is not good, will appear as scientific notation (1e##) on CMC charts, not good for Earthlings. ;)

Sorry for the undertone then. That is absolutely not what I intended. I am only pissed off that some tokens are so successful just because they look cheap. I wrote that in a bad mood. It is more cynicism than anything.  :-\

That's only during a particular phase of the speculative mania. I first got involved with Bitcoin at the height of the April 2013 bubble. My first inclination was to buy LTC because it was "cheap" and possibly "the next Bitcoin." I paid dearly for that mistake, and over the next year year I immersed myself in all things cryptocurrency. In the end, I came to realize that Bitcoin is by far the most reliable blockchain and store of value in the space. There is a learning curve here. "Cheap price" is no replacement for brilliant and driven developers. Newcomers to the space will learn that over time, and likely by buying into projects based on nothing more than unit price. That will come back to bite them.


No thanks. This whole "we need to rush things and make gimmicks to compete with altcoins" attitude is destructive and divisive.


How so?

Sorry I can't  agree with you .
I am considering it's the most high price of BTC  attracting the media and encourage them to report BTC when it hit a new record,it will let more people know BTC.

Well, you got a point but....BTC is not getting any dough right now, so having the high price is not as good as having a high market cap

I will stop posting here, just one last post. If nothing is done, it is possible that in the next few months, maybe weeks, BTC will be surpassed by XRP and a bunch of other coins and drops to under 10% market cap

Once the top positions have been filled by others, the king status will be gone. Already BTC owners lose many billions due to this idiocy. If BTC had split in early 2017, from 1000 to 1, it would now be at $100. Our 100 000$ BTC, would already be here.

To illustrate my point and as a final wakeup call here is a pic of CMC, "all coins" then sorted by circulation - reverse. Up to 1000% in 1 day, up to 2000% in 7 days, this is money that BTC owners lose due to all the autistic denial of being "KING". BTC domination down to 33% Cheers.

Some coinz do all the work that BTC has done in 2017, in 10 days. DIX asset - not even a website - rubbish - but 2500% in a week.  :(

https://imgur.com/3SgMRTJ

XRP is not blockchain tech, it's centralised and hence censorable. Any gains in value are temporary, and besides, Bitcoin circumvents the Ripple use case anyway.



Thank god for that

+1
Insulting others who have a different perspective and act like the smartest person here, it's not a good way to start a discussion with those words.
if Op really thinks it will work, just ask core developers to do so, doubt they will approve it though.
Change the amount of bitcoin from 1 to 1000 doesn't solve the problem of bitcoin transaction, even though it may seem cheap and more people will see it as a bunch of numbers to buy, but it will add the backlog on the mempool without proper scale solution implemented yet > more adopters but the network still on current condition = transaction fees increase even higher and confirmation time become longer.

I also think that if other coins eg Litcoin, Dash etc, surpass bitcoin ,there may face similar issues as segwit and many hard forks .As it stand now,Bitcoin has gone to the level where those segwit  hard forks may not make much impart in bringing down the price,as in a hardfork, 1 BTC old= 1000 BTC new,but there could be a solition that may resolved these issues later .

Jimmy Song proposed a BIP that has to do with this issue:


Read the BIP here:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015399.html

Now.. if you think that a hardfork is a good idea, I think you are a bit delusional to think it would end up well. We would end up with 2 Bitcoins (not counting the existing forks) because once again, a lot of people would be against the idea, so the best way to do this is to standardize a smaller unit of value within interfaces and not change the actual protocol.

Personally im used to dealing with small amounts of satoshis and a lot of 0's.. after so many years I got used to it.

Professional trader noticing what I have noticed in OP

https://www.coindesk.com/weathering-altcoin-shitstorm-investing-next-one/

"It seems ridiculous to say, but the cheaper the asset, the greater the chance of a return. And when I said cheap, I'm not referring to a fundamental measure of value like a value investor would (P/BV, P/E, etc). I'm referring to its price.

A chart of returns over the past seven days paints this picture. There's a direct negative correlation between the price of the token and return. It's scary, but it's unfortunately true."

"Investors trying to find fundamental value are ripping their eyes out. XRP, with legitimately zero fundamental usage (see below), just passed BTC in diluted market cap."

could work but only if you can efficiently send individual bits. then and only then we could have the first line on CMC look like this

Bits $2.047.981.767.000    $0.14767    $160.241.500.000    16.792.400.000.000 BIT    +1000,99%  ;D ;D ;D

Interestin way of thinking, however different blockchains can not represent same coins in the same time. Unless they can work as a side chain (maybe). As soon as you fork a coin, you end up with two different blockchains which have different values as well as security levels. This idea can be possible in the future with implementing a few extra technologies.

I wouldn't go as far as saying it has to be split into smaller units to survive, but it would most certainly help on the road to mass adoption.

It would be better if people end up sending fewer satoshis lets say 1000 instead of 10000 than more with all the 00000 before the real amount. It can become quite confusing and I know of people who have screwed up this way.

I just think everyone who uses btc, should give the amount in satoshi or mBTC

We need Bitcoin Price Index showing price of other alts relative to Bitcoin supply - this must be displayed everywhere along with USD price. That could do the trick

we are thinking bitcoin to spilt but USD is losing its value every day because of bitcoin denomination sooner most of the purchases will happen in Bitcoin demonisation not in USD that is when Bitcoin really won the game

Maybe, but splitting will surely lead to more confusion. I don't know much about the technical part of bitcoin but as a layman, I doubt it's going to solve the problem.

hoping this could happn

MAh, I don't think split it into smaller units will help it.
I've listen that everybody trying to solve BTC's problems, but I don't think it could be solved, unless LN could do some amazing job to BTC. If it don't solve the speed/fees problem, its domination will go lower and lower, until disappears.

Well, Lightning does actually permit milli-satoshi values. Which is, essentially, splitting the smallest unit (100 millionth of 1 BTC) into a thousand smaller sub-divisions (100 billionths of 1BTC)

Has it really taken 3 pages of the thread for someone to mention this?

No not when it comes to moving the decimal place but they need to split the block-chain up
and move towards using a block-matrix because this is the reason Bitcoin will not scale
plus they knew this nine years ago.

Forget Lightning, it's a sticking plaster that uses mini-banks called hubs and if block-chain is so good
like they keep saying then lets keep it all on block with maybe a minimum value that can be sent as
something like $0.10 to stop spam.

Ripple says you can send real small amounts but it would not work for me when i tried to send
$0.50 to a test wallet but it worked fine with $1.00 so they need calling out on this deception 

You can use satoshi as a unit instead of BTC if you like. I don't think unit is that important...

I cannot see this happen because we committed to the fundamental rule that there will only be 21 million BTC.

Bitcoin is for large transactions. Litecoin for small.

I think this will be one of the next gimmicks seen in mid/large cap altcoins. They'll fork to dilute the supply, while simultaneously inflating user holdings by the same proportion. The price will fall, say, 1000x based on the dilution. Given the state of the markets and newbie perceptions about unit prices, that alone could provide another 100x gains or better over time. It wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Bitcoin isn't a gimmicky altcoin, so we're not going to do that.

But I have to say, I'm very disappointed in those that promoted and merged BIP 176, especially because it seemed like the motivation for doing so was related to this "price perception" problem. "Bits" is inaccurate, and we already use "satoshis." It's off-putting to see in the GUI. :-\

Why not use/trade in smaller unit satoshis instead of BTC..it will look cheaper
Ofcourse, the fee is killer

That's what annoys me so much about this "unit bias" discussion. The reality is that no one can even spend "bits" due to network fees. Spending a "bit" means spending 500+ bits to get a transaction confirmed (for median transaction size). Smaller units like satoshis or "bits" might make sense once Lightning is widely deployed on the mainnet. But aren't we putting the cart before the horse?

It just seems like some early adopters, salty about the astronomical gains in altcoins, now want in on the action. I've never once heard anybody use the term "bits" outside of this discussion about how to control newbie price perception. I'm with Keonne on this one (https://twitter.com/keonne/status/950673754656358402):


People should just learn to use decimals.....

They never use to say that and they said "Virtually free transaction fees" in the white paper
and if our peasant amounts of money are too small for them we could always move to ETH or
Ripple and use a single currency for all our needs.

I am no stock broker but I look at the charts and I see fees up, BTC price down but the
chart that i want to see is "Loss of trust" in Bitcoin development team

Isn't it just the same if you use satoshi instead of 1000 BTC? And i think it's not useful anyway since the transaction fees are too much, i guess Bitcoin transaction is only for millionaires because they can transact bigger Bitcoin with just a small fees.

I think you are right since the transaction fees is killing the short time traders. If LN was there, it shouldn't be a problem anymore but i guess we couldn't it but to wait.

Yes, if we want Bitcoin as a currency (which was the plan) then of course Bitcoin must split into smaller units. People are considering different altcoins just because of Bitcoin's higher value in a very small figure. If we keep thinking Bitcoins as a way of investment then I don't think you could make it a currency. Which is ultimately a threat to Bitcoin survive.