|
Under 12 hours left! The poll numbers are a lot closer than expected; any of the four proposals could still come out on top, so every vote counts right now.
|
|
|
|
So is this a legit poll to actually officially name it, or just for fun?
There's no "official" aspect to it. I'm just a guy who thinks making the next step in bitcoin usage be the halfway point between bitcoins and satoshis makes more sense than dropping down 3 decimal points... then 3 more... then two. So rather than whine about it, I figured I'd throw together a simple contest for fun, offer a prize, and see if any interest in the idea is generated.  (I'm glad others are pointing out that Far East cultures typically have a name for 10000 of something, the implication being that a bitcoin was meant to be a ten-thousand ten-thousand satoshis. Apparently our metric system has a Western bias in that there's no standard name for 0.0001 of something....) |
|
|
|
The last leg of the contest to propose a name for the 0.0001 BTC unit is now underway. Details follow... Please read carefully:The four highest-voted names from the prior poll are up for voting. You only get one vote, and again, your vote cannot be changed. At the end of the voting period, the highest-voted name will be declared the winner, and the submitter will be contacted to receive their 0.1 BTC prize. In the interest of time, the voting period will be roughly 48 hours. The voting on this poll will be closed at 23:59:59 CST on Friday night, January 10.It's otherwise pretty straightforward, but anyone interested can review the original thread and the first poll. For those curious about each name's origins: bip - This name stems from the financial term " basis point". With a bp being 1/100 of 1%, numerically it works out to the same fractional amount, even though it has a different meaning. bit - The original monetary bit referred to an amount commonly used in the colonial U.S., specifically 12.5 cents (1/8 of a Spanish dollar from the era.) finney - This name was suggested in honor of Hal Finney, whose noteworthiness with regards to his contributions to Bitcoin and cryptography in general can be explored in this thread (and is summarized in his wikipedia page.) nakamoto - Obviously a complementary name to "satoshi." With that, the final poll of this contest begins; vote away, and again, may the best name win! |
|
|
|
|
And that's a wrap! Poll is locked; final poll should be up momentarily.
|
|
|
|
|
Just under 24 hours left, although it looks like the names of choice for the final four are likely settled. The final poll will be only one vote per voter, and will determine the prize winner for the contest.
|
|
|
|
|
Less than 48 hours left; over 170 votes so far.
|
|
|
|
That's not really correct. Austrians hold that economic value is subjective. The regression theorem is simply an inference about the emergence of money from barter. It's saying that a medium of exchange must have been valued for itself by the market prior to being adopted for use as a money. From the point of view of monetary theorists, it was necessary to break the perceived infinite regression of saying that something always had value as a medium of exchange. Obviously you have to close the loop somewhere, so this is just a logical inference which keeps you out of the circular logic of saying that something always had medium-of-exchange value when discussing the emergence of money.
Peter unfortunately does use the term "intrinsic value," but he's not an academic. What he means is market value apart from its use as a medium of exchange. What people in the hard money crowd find it hard to grasp is that human beings can quite easily ascribe value to something that was initially valueless (no market price) like the tokens produced by the Bitcoin software on Day 1 of its launch. No bickering about monetary theory can contradict what we actually observe in the marketplace. We see clearly that people started valuing Bitcoin for itself due to its perceived utility or novelty or whatever. It's irrelevant what the reason to value it was in the minds of the participants. The relevant point is that they then form the market for Bitcoin, and it's off to the races. Bitcoin is being used as a medium of exchange now, and so it obviously had to have had a value to people (if not a price) before it started being traded for pizzas and such. That's the point of the theorem. It's expressing the idea that this is a logical necessity. But the regression theorem should not be used as a predictor. It just says that if something becomes a medium of exchange then it was valued for itself immediately prior to that. People tried to use it as a predictor when it came to Bitcoin and got confused.
So one persistent error is in thinking that if something did not always have a market price (like the original BTC tokens), then it was never really valued for itself in the marketplace, and therefore can't become a money (due to the regression theorem). This is obviously a misunderstanding of the theorem, but it's hard to catch when you've focused on the virtues of hard money for so long. We never think of gold and silver as being valueless at one time because most pat explanations of the emergence of money start with precious metals being valued commodities already. But originally they did not have prices at all - just like Bitcoin. They were newly discovered curiosities at one point too. So this failure to go back to the beginning of the story of precious metals led to confusion when people analyzed Bitcoin as being merely valueless tokens with "no intrinsic value." Add to that the fact that Bitcoin was engineered on a computer and you get an understandable resistance in people who have been immersed in classical monetary theory.
Wow. Well said, particularly the highlighted portion. |
|
|
|
The contest to propose a name for the 0.0001 BTC unit continues! Details below.... Please read carefully:The name list in the poll is set in stone. The primary criteria that held sway was the number of recommendations (including duplicate or similar submissions) for each name, followed by terseness and marketability. That said, I thought some of the suggestions that didn't make the cut were pretty good, but these to some degree or another seemed to spark more interest from the community. So... please go ahead and vote for whichever name you feel is "best", based on your own personal criteria/preferences/etc. You also get a second vote if you want to throw your weight behind another name in case your first choice doesn't get into the final four (I strongly recommend doing so.) Note that you will not be able to change your votes! Feel free to comment on the choices, or to make the case for one choice over others. As usual, please stay on topic, etc. Voting will be closed and the thread locked at 23:59:59 CST (GMT-6) on Wednesday, January 8. Shortly thereafter the final poll presenting the final four names will be posted. The final four will be chosen from the highest-voted names that are not found to be obviously flawed (see first thread for examples.) One final thought: keep in mind that a name for the unit wouldn't necessarily be used as-is; variations of it, or even abbreviations or prefixes derived from it could just as well take hold. With that, we're off. May the best name win! |
|
|
|
0.0001 BTC = Ittibit or IttiBit
Forgot to confirm this one, which seems valid enough. |
|
|
|
Scrambit
And... that's it! I should have the poll up within 24 hours. Thanks to all who participated! |
|
|
|
|
Just a few minutes, if anyone is contemplating last-minute suggestions.
I'll lock the thread shortly after time is up.
|
|
|
|
Put all the names in the poll, if it is obvious then let the voting say so.
I'm sorry, but that's just not going to happen.  If a different name becomes commonplace, I can't stop that, and I have no intention to try. And of course, others can host their own contest. But I have criteria that I'll be applying to the initial selection process, and I've provided said criteria... plus there are a few names that I'm just not going to give money for. The forewarned bias rears it's ugly head! |
|
|
|
1 botcoin
1 betcoin
1 batcoin
Provided I haven't missed a prior claim, these three can be yours. "V"
coinWonder 1 chaum
So I also put forward "Nak"
|
|
|
|
I humbly submit the...
Snowden.
<snip>
Also for your consideration: the Assange, Babbage, and Hayek.
|
|
|
|
The thing is that your transaction may not only "get somewhat delayed", it may never confirm at all. By paying 0.0001 for each 1000 bytes of transaction size (round up) it stays above the minimum relay fee required by nodes relaying the transaction to miners. Those are the rules of the network.
If we don't follow those rules users will experience transactions getting stuck. "freeing" your coins after that can be a nightmare, there are many threads on this forum on this topic. This will hit us (the developers) with a slew of angry users, as they will blame the wallet, and I really hate having angry users.
I support keeping the mandatory minimum 0.0001 fee. There are plenty or reasons for it to stay, and it's worth it to maintain the simplicity of the app. Message signing is in the works.
Nice! Is there a way to get rid of the "backup missing" message?
The "backup missing" message is shown as long as you have a private key which was created by the wallet and which hasn't been backed up with verification. Private keys imported (e.g. from paper) are verified by default, as you have proven to have an external source (backup) of the key. One way to get around this is to create a private key by external means and import it to the wallet, and then delete the automatically generated initial key. The "backup missing" message may look annoying, but I think it makes sense to not change the requirements for removing it. |
|
|
|
|
Roughly 8 hours, 8 minutes left.
|
|
|
|
What are the proposed names until now?
You'd have to look back at the ones I quoted. Obviously, some of the suggestions were less serious than others. If you don't feel like going back, just list your suggestions; if any are duplicates they'll just be tossed out before the poll choices are chosen. |
|
|
|
Bitski
I've wanted to call it minicoin too. Or maybe a centcoin.
1 hal
1 fin
1 finn
1 halfin (or halfinn)
How about 'semibit', 'fracbit' as in fraction of, 'grambit' or 'fairbit'
Also 'nanobit', 'splitbit', 'fragbit'.
We already have nano-bitcoins (0.1 satoshi), sorry A BabyBit.
1 Nioc (reverse "coin")
1 Billy
1 Biccy
1 Bikky
1 Bissy
1 Biddy
1 Birry
1 Biffy
1 Bixxy
I also like Turing.
|
|
|
|
Call it a Bittlet
Matoshi
Yorozu (ybtc)
Elebit (ebtc)
wibit (wbtc)
pip bit = 1/100 of 1% of 1 bitcoin = 1 pbit = 1 pb
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to automate Bitcoin withdrawal ? Can people withdraw their amount from a wallet through an API ?
There are many types of wallet. Can you be more specific? Also, define "withdraw" Person A has an account in web app X and earned some 3 BTC over there. Now he wants to withdraw his BTC amount from web app's wallet to his own wallet. How can we automate this without any manual intervention ? Let us suppose the web app X's wallet is on blockchain.info, but person A's wallet may be anywhere. Person A will only provide his BTC address. I'm not familiar with blockchain.info's API - you could contact them or study their API. U may suggest API of some other wallet. That's not a problem. But how can it be automated ? In the example you gave, it would require the holder of the wallet (blockchain.info) to offer the automation as part of the service. While I don't believe they do this, it's actually a pretty commonplace thing; most mining pools allow you to set a "balance threshold," so that when your balance hits that amount, your bitcoins are automatically sent to the address of your choosing. It's also possible for them to spend your balance to you at regular intervals, regardless of amount, although I'm not sure how common (or practical) that is. If you wanted the automation to be prompted from the side of the user with the private wallet (say your phone wallet app automatically "withdraws" funds whenever it detects that you've entered a store,) it would require some sort of API setup where your wallet app is instructing the web app to send you the funds at the appropriate times; then, as long as the web app's systems were online and working, it would function just like a withdrawal. From what I understand, the core devs are working on code that may make this easier (by being able to request payment, which you could then automate from your side.) Still, it requires a willingness on the part of the web service provider to implement the API setup and to perform the spends when authorized. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
