There's increasingly adoption of this unit [bits] everywhere from what I've been seeing.
Yesterday you could get 2200 bits for a dollar, today you can only get 2050 bits.  My hardware vendor says you can get a lot more bits for one dollar. The word is already taken. I agree with Danny, I will stick with what people actually use and where I live, I never heard "bit" for bitcoin. Overloading terms is very common in English. I'm not so sure about other languages. With native English speakers, I'm not the least bit worried that context will be insufficient to make obvious the type of "bit" being discussed. I do think the psychological effect of "wow, I bought 40,000 bits for $20" will be beneficial to the exchange price. It's semantics, but, I think it'll make a difference. Agreed. BTC1 = 1,000,000 bits Simple. |
|
|
|
so for example the funds list before and after might look something like this (with transitional? ghosting of leading zeroes)  |
|
|
|
If we combine zib and bit we get "zits"
zits was my first choice, but got squeezed out |
|
|
|
|
Although it is the smallest unit (so far!) Satoshi is great in a respectful and formal sense, but how about 'tidbit' as a colloquial alternative.
1 bit = 100 tidbits
|
|
|
|
I think until microtransactions and dust spending is brought back, the bit argument is moot.
Explaining to people that sending them 1,000 bits will cost them 11,000 bits makes it more confusing than it is now.
I'm not saying I'm against it, but I'm not for it right now.
let 1 btc = 1,000,000 bits = $500 10,000 bits = $5 default fee = 0.5 cent = 100 bits miner's fee will become variable soon, so this may all be moot |
|
|
|
@gjeric and @DennisD7 great work! |
|
|
|
Honestly? I suspect it's bikeshedding
with all due respect, since you think it's trivial why do you keep posting? Because it has non-trivial ramifications. The classic (at least in IT) example is of a nuclear power plant where the board comprises a few specialist (nuclear physicists) and many generalists (administrators, managers, etc). Discussion about important issues - safety, etc - is edged out by discussion about less important issues. That's certainly a risk here, but far more importantly is - if the generalists succeed in forcing change it will impact on the specialists - and the community at large. Agreed, it's non-trivial. The bitcoin situation here is rather different; it's not about specialists vs generalists, it's about money, something that should be readily understood and utilised by both specialists and generalists, for all age groups and nationalities and as many levels of numeracy as possible. |
|
|
|
Honestly? I suspect it's bikeshedding
with all due respect, since you think it's trivial why do you keep posting? |
|
|
|
Actually we have MicroBitcoin (μBTC) already. Why change it to Bits?
I prefer μBTC (spelled: uBit)
No we don't, we have microbitcoin. I think you've answered you're own question. Using those tiny fractional units is confusing and error prone. |
|
|
|
User 101111 on reddit made this mock-up wallet. I wish I could take credit for that mock-up. I can't remember who made it but it was someone on reddit. |
|
|
|
|
We all know Gen3 isn't out yet, just some test samples; I'd be very concerned if I saw friedcat on Spondoolies forum 'straightening things out".
|
|
|
|
|
If the btc price moves significantly FC could reallocate chips to wherever it is most profitable: direct chip sales, franchising, or mining.
|
|
|
|
> BTW,our testing room has been renovated. If that's the testing room I can't wait to see the actual mining centre! |
|
|
|
|
thanks for the update and good luck with the testing
|
|
|
|
coffee is worth only 0.0000005 BTC look it up
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. |
|
|
|
Are there any good reasons we can't just use Satoshi's for smaller?
There was a serious suggestion on the development mailing list for wallet developers to standardise on microbitcoins (u BTC, 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/#msg31639713Also that unless the number of digits were increased in the protocol, displaying in u BTC 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 m BTC by default, and u BTC proponents were not heeded. 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.
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  Yes BTC1 = $850 sounds good, but how does having 100 million sound? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
