Somehow this thread has wound up in the "Alternate cryptocurrencies" sub-board again.

Yet, zibcoin is an alternative to the alternatives. It's the affirmative!

Embrace Bitcoin! But quote everyday small values in zib.

Not sure which prior post you're referring to, but all of these proposed changes are technically feasible (if critical mass of term-usage is achieved). No matter what units are chosen for human use, interfaces, and integration with other systems – the core protocol/system always works on integral satoshis. All of the following tallies are identical, and represented the same in the binary protocol and canonical data structures:

  21 million BTC
= 21 billion mBTC/"millibitcoin"
= 21 trillion µBTC/"microbitcoin"
= 210 trillion satoshis

Working up from a zib=µBTC unit instead, again all these can be used interchangably without really changing the atomic units of the system:

  210 trillion satoshis/cZBC/"centizib"/"cents"
= 21 trillion ZBC/"zib" (aka µBTC)
= 21 billion kZBC/kƵ/"kilozib" (aka mBTC)
= 21 million MZBC/MƵ/"megazib" (aka BTC)

For completeness, you can also think about units that exist but are so large they'd rarely be useful...

  210 trillion satoshis
= 21 thousand GZBC/GƵ/"gigazib" (aka kBTC/"kilobitcoin")
= 21 TZBC/TƵ/"terazib" (aka MBTC/"megabitcoin")

...as in, "Some estimate that Satoshi himself may own around 1 megabitcoin (1 MBTC)", or "Mt. Gox misplaced 850 kilobitcoin (850 kBTC)".

Since people easily understand large numbers, especially when rarely used, it's far more likely to emphasize the unique size of these numbers by using the smaller units:

"Some estimate that Satoshi himself may own around 1 million bitcoin" or "...1 trillion zib".

"MtGox misplaced 850 thousand bitcoin" or "... 850 billion zib".

A benefit of contriving a new term (like zibcoin/zib/ZBC/Ƶ) is that it can be used in parallel with other terms, giving time for the new term to gradually be understood and prove its worth, and always leaving the old terms understandable (in current work and archived content).

Big agreement up front isn't required, and there's no risky 'big bang' switchover date splitting software or historical records into two disjoint eras.

Instead, people just choose to use new terms incrementally more-and-more as they see the need – perhaps in reaction to either Bitcoin value-appreciation, or problems when spelling/saying other terms. Others gradually become familiar over repeated viewings, learning from context (or looking it up when first confronted).

While some have alleged this to be a fork of Bitcoin, the complete binary-protocol compatibility makes 'fork' a misnomer. It's more of a warm, loving spoon.

Come a little closer Bitcoin. We love you so much, we just wish there were a million times more of you.

If I thought that could get broad consensus, and the switchover carried out without too much transition damage, I'd favor it. Obviously, the sooner, the better, because each day of writing/coding around existing units bitcoin/millibit/microbit makes the switch harder. Still, I could be convinced.

But, if as I fear it's too late for that, or too late to do it in one big switch, then 'zibcoin' offers many of the same benefits as a 1/1,000,000th 'bitcoin'. Same # of syllables, similar sound, compact unambiguous abbreviations (Z/Ƶ/ZBC). It can be used as a trial/placeholder.

And if your ultimate goal is rebasing the 'bitcoin':

I actually think if 'zibcoin' catches on, it might become easier to someday revalue the headline Bitcoin. Zibcoin adoption means there are fewer labels/lines-of-code/stories that cement the classic, giant-bitcoin (BTC=10^8 satoshi, mBTC=10^5 satoshi, µBTC=10^2 satoshi) values into permanence. If day-to-day values are commonly quoted in zibcoin, casual adoption is smoothed, and the idea is planted that the "core Bitcoin system" is separate from its units, and can support multiple units.

And then, when "Bitcoin" is mainly used to refer to the system-as-a-whole, or the unit from the 'olden days' when you could get a million zibs for a dollar, then you could incrementally say... "OK, let's just call zibcoin units 'bitcoins' again." The zibcoin/zib words would be serving as the middle-step of a safer transitional process – a bit more like how soft-forks happen in stages, only taking full-force when most miners are ready. You then wouldn't need total consensus and synchronization for a giant 'flag day' incompatibility cutover.

Zibcoin is named for, among other things, ZIB the Soviet space dog.

Drafted at the last moment when the intended astro-dog was unavailable, ZIB survived a suborbital test flight in September 1951. Attaboy, ZIB!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_dogs#Bolik_and_ZIB

That means he got closer to the moon than any Shiba Inu.

We remember you, ZIB, and will spend "The World's First 100% Bitcoin-Binary-Compatible Altcoin™" in your honor.

While my previous long answer is the true origin - that I searched for made-up words that might fit the need until finding a good one – I've since learned that ZIB was also the name given to a stray dog that was drafted into the Soviet Space Program in September 1951, and flew a successful suborbital test flight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_dogs#Bolik_and_ZIB

http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2011/04/05/bark-at-the-moon-a-history-of-soviet-space-dogs/

Thus I'm retconning the Zibcoin name as an homage to ZIB, the unlikeliest space mutt.

Without any formal preparation, I'm guessing ZIB got closer to the moon than any Shiba Inu. Attaboy, ZIB!

ZIB, we remember you.

Wanted something similar enough to 'bitcoin' to suggest a relation – same general size/sounds/syllables – but different enough to avoid constant confusion.

Spent some time looking at 'tibcoin' – just reversing the 'bit' part – but was concerned with 'T' having too many colliding meanings (tera-, TiB tebibytes, time, etc), and the abbreviation (TBC) being too much like BTC, and 'tibcoin' being too easily confusable with 'bitcoin' by single-letter transposition typos or flubbed speech.

Still, having the internal 'b' seemed helpful for slight bitcoin-suggestiveness, so went through the alphabet for '*ibcoin' options... Most had problems of colliding meanings or unclear/unhelpful pronunciations. 'Z', though, offered:

• 'Z' as a fairly distinctive one-letter abbreviation; 'ZBC' just different enough from 'BTC' to avoid too many mistypes/misviews
• Ƶ (Z-with-slash) available currency-ish unicode character
• 'zib' pronounceable with no obvious word collisions in English
• 'zib' very action verb-able, by my native English speaker ears, compared to 'bit' or 'mic' ("I'll bit 10,000 to you" or "I'll mic 10,000 to you" both sound wrongish compared to "I'll zib 10,000 to you")
• a useful connotation of 'finality' or 'the last' – once this unit is adopted, even satoshi-sized values need no more than 2 decimal places, and the search for new units or places to move the decimal point can end

Stewed on 'zibcoin' for a little while, then decided to write up the case in a few stable public places. I believe it solves the core issue, with the minimum required novelty. But, I know it'll take time to evaluate – to become familiar with the sound/spelling/abbreviations, and observe the compactness/unambiguity benefits compared to other options.

Getting the case out in a few forums lets it enter the thinkable-solution-set for people struggling with BTC-deep-decimal/mBTC/µBTC display issues, which come up repeatedly (including recently among core & wallet developers).

If Zibcoin doesn't sound quite right on first consideration... maybe it will over time, as more people repeatedly face BTC appreciation/denomination/communication issues.

(I thought a microbitcoin-based denomination would be overkill/superficial/silly the first few times I heard the idea... but now see it as so obviously beneficial that I just want to help remove the major remaining obstacle, the awkward language of 'microbitcoin' and 'µBTC'.)

So that the thousands of projects, and millions of users, can switch at the same time, when's the switchover day where 'Bitcoin' is redefined?

Will the markets be closed, like when a country changes the side of the road it drives on?

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

The need is clear, but redefining 'Bitcoin' right now (especially swapping its meaning with 'Satoshi') would be like trying to change the side-of-the-road a country drives on. It'd require massive consensus and synchronization to avoid confusion and loss.

I have a proposal based on coining a new term for µBTC. More details are in a sibling thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=515405.msg5774811#msg5774811

Cheers, jeers, and all other kinds of reactions welcome.

The need is clear, and the microbitcoin is a nice sized unit, but a mess of a word/abbreviation.

What's needed is a new word, related to Bitcoin and just as breezy, but with one unambiguous meaning (µBTC) that still leaves plenty of room for appreciation.

My proposal is here:

Ƶibcoin: Your New Favorite Altcoin

Lots of reasoning there, much of which has already been mentioned here, but the TLDR:

  1          bitcoin = 1,000,000    zibcoin = 100,000,000 satoshi
  0.000001   bitcoin =         1    zibcoin =         100 satoshi           
  0.00000001 bitcoin =         0.01 zibcoin =           1 satoshi

...and...

          Ƶ1 = 1 µBTC = BTC0.000001
      Ƶ1,000 = 1 mBTC = BTC0.001
  Ƶ1,000,000          = BTC1

'Zib' can be used as either a noun or verb in casual conversation:

“I’ll bring you a pizza for 10,000 zib”

“when are you going to zib me 10,000 for that pizza Friday night?”

Unless the satoshi is ever made divisible, other new terms won't be necessary. Zibcoin units can be adopted incrementally over time – there's no need for a big synchronized switchover, where old terms change their meaning.

I know it sounds a bit silly, but I think it'll grow on you if you give it a chance.