At http://www.bitcointrust.co/ it says: LIQUIDITY: To commence no later than March 2014. So, should we expect a sell off right before March? |
|
|
|
I don't think most of the world really cares about dollars.
Maybe not, but most of the world HATES decimals in prices. Decimals confuse people. Would you like to see a cup of coffee cost 2 milliBits or 0.002 bitcoins? It's much easier to understand whole numbers. Also, many people think 1000 $ /bitcoin unit is too expensive. I try to tell them they can buy fractions of a bitcoin, but they hate that idea. People don't like dealing with fractions. It's basic psychology. This is the reason I'm in favor of using the unit 'bit', where one bit would be 100 satoshis. it would be so much more marketable. Getting a fraction of a BTC for a dollar isn't very appealing, but getting ~1000 bits would sound a lot better. Bit derives naturally from bitcoin, but is still different enough that it sounds like its own unit rather than just being a word for a thousand or a millionth of a BTC. The following quote from another thread justifies it perfectly. +1 for 1 million bits in a coin. I feel like that would be perfect when 1 btc is in the ballpark of $10k, therefore a bit is in the ballpark of a cent. Its still workable now but its also looking forward to the future. With a 10k valuation, prices for things won't need decimal points, they'd look like dollar prices do today except without the dot which I think is very intuitive. Bits is easy to say and intuitively derives from bitcoin.
Too many names for things is confusing, especially when they can be confused with each other like milli and microbits. Now we'll have bitcoins for large sums, bits for small sums, and satoshis for the technically inclined (laymen need not worry about this term).
Bits also work if bitcoin ever reaches a valuation of a million $ each, then bits are equivalent to dollars and prices can reintroduce two numbers after a decimal point like we use now.
|
|
|
|
This has been debated to death, but perhaps re-framing the argument might show how hollow Bitcoin's scarcity argument is.
Bitcoin cultist's claim one of its greatest virtues is that the supply of Bitcoins is limited to 21 million, but of course if Bitcoin was ever to become the global default currency its promulgators dream about, each Bitcoin would denominationally represent a huge USD equivalent. To this end, if the US treasury said that it was restructuring the USD such that there would be 21 million MegaDollars maximum, but that each of those MegaDollars could be dived up to infinity, does it suddenly become sound money?
If there were no counterparty risk, then yes. It's the fact that you still have to trust the US government that would make it unsound in this case. |
|
|
|
|
A lot of austrians will lose a lot of credibility because of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is pretty much the perfect money according to Austrian theory. It has all the properties that money need to a higher degree than all competition. Some austrians see this, but those that don't simple fail att applying their own theory to bitcoin. That's a shame.
|
|
|
|
No.
I diagree. OP is withdrawing funds to one of his addresses, which mean that he has the corresponding private key. Coins sent to the adress are usable only if you're up to date, however transactions sent to that address are simply stored in the blockchain even if the client is not up to date. I was confused as well at first, but his no was to the second question in the OP, do I have to download the entire blockchain first. |
|
|
|
Where are you getting the total "Net Assets" from. I can only find the NAV on their web site. There is an update btw.
NAV / price per share Shares = .1 bitcoin I was reffering to the total net assets of all their shares, which you need in order to estimate their BTC holdings. But I found it myself. I was looking at the second market web site instead of the BIT web site. |
|
|
|
Bits it is then! That will be what my project is based on.
Read the reddit thread posted. Bits is a good word, but we seem to start get some traction to use bits for 1 millionth of a bitcoin, ie 100 satoshis. If you are going to use the word, please use this convention, or people will just get even more confused.  |
|
|
|
|
Where are you getting the total "Net Assets" from. I can only find the NAV on their web site. There is an update btw.
|
|
|
|
I don't like bits
I like bitcoins
I agree. A bitcoin is 1 million times better than a bit. |
|
|
|
I don't see a problem with "bit". The only objection I've seen is that it could be confused with informational bits, but those very rarely come up in the same context. British use pound for both currency and weight, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. I think bits is a very marketable name with a real chance to catch on.
mBTC and uBTC are very easy to understand. Or do you think people using Bitcoin dont have idea what SI unit prefixes are ? have you actually talked with newcomers about bitcoin using the SI-prefixes? They shouldn't be hard to understand, but they sure seem to be. I wouldn't personally object to the SI-prefixes, hell I was a proponent for them once. My problem with them is that they doesn't seem to work very well. I've had more than one conversations where the prefixes causes some sort of mental hiccup with people, shifting focus from the point I'm trying to get across. People aren't used to counting money in fractions, and this makes them very skeptical. Also, using too many different units is potentially a big problem as it could cause some huge fuck-ups. A currency needs as few names for different units as possible. And as I said earlier, I live in a country that uses the metric system. If the SI-prefixes isn't very marketable for currency here, I don't think they are very usable anywhere. Another user worded it perfectly in another thread. +1 for 1 million bits in a coin. I feel like that would be perfect when 1 btc is in the ballpark of $10k, therefore a bit is in the ballpark of a cent. Its still workable now but its also looking forward to the future. With a 10k valuation, prices for things won't need decimal points, they'd look like dollar prices do today except without the dot which I think is very intuitive. Bits is easy to say and intuitively derives from bitcoin.
Too many names for things is confusing, especially when they can be confused with each other like milli and microbits. Now we'll have bitcoins for large sums, bits for small sums, and satoshis for the technically inclined (laymen need not worry about this term).
Bits also work if bitcoin ever reaches a valuation of a million $ each, then bits are equivalent to dollars and prices can reintroduce two numbers after a decimal point like we use now.
"Bits" is simple, intuitive, marketable and forward-looking. I really think this is our best bet. |
|
|
|
We need to use the word 'bits' for a millionth of a bitcoin instead. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1rmto3/its_bits/I've been pushing for this kind of hard recently, but it's only because I think all the other naming schemes causes too much mental hiccups for some people. I've had plenty of conversations where people get confused by using the SI-system on currency. And their skepticism of it never seem to dissappear from that point forwards. Bits is the most intuitive name I've come across that seems to resolve this issue. And I live in a country that uses the metric system. Bits is so much more psychologically appealing as well. Imagine this conversation. "Bitcoin is to expensive" "You can buy bits of a bitcoin. 1 USD currently gets you 1000 bits." "Oh" Getting 1000 bits for your dollar sounds a lot better than getting a fraction of a bitcoin for your dollar, even if you call that fraction mBTC or uBTC. Logically it shouldn't matter much, but in order to get people to focus on the important parts, it seem to mather a lot. Just my 2 bits. I made a thread all about that. Not sure that "bit" is the best short name, though. One guy recommended bai. Link to your thread? I don't see a problem with "bit". The only objection I've seen is that it could be confused with informational bits, but those very rarely come up in the same context. British use pound for both currency and weight, and that doesn't seem to be a problem. I think bits is a very marketable name with a real chance to catch on. |
|
|
|
We need to use the word 'bits' for a millionth of a bitcoin instead. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1rmto3/its_bits/I've been pushing for this kind of hard recently, but it's only because I think all the other naming schemes causes too much mental hiccups for some people. I've had plenty of conversations where people get confused by using the SI-system on currency. And their skepticism of it never seem to dissappear from that point forwards. Bits is the most intuitive name I've come across that seems to resolve this issue. And I live in a country that uses the metric system. Bits is so much more psychologically appealing as well. Imagine this conversation. "Bitcoin is to expensive" "You can buy bits of a bitcoin. 1 USD currently gets you 1000 bits." "Oh" Getting 1000 bits for your dollar sounds a lot better than getting a fraction of a bitcoin for your dollar, even if you call that fraction mBTC or uBTC. Logically it shouldn't matter much, but in order to get people to focus on the important parts, it seem to mather a lot. Just my 2 bits. |
|
|
|
Thank you for adding 'bits' to the poll. |
|
|
|
Spending thousands of bits on small things will remind people of currencies that have been hyperinflated.
...
That might be a good thing. Though the idea of using bit for something other than info seems like a two bit idea to me. But that's just your two bits. |
|
|
|
I wish people would get the fuck over this. It's like you are trying to confuse people.
.1 = point one bitcoin
.01 = point zero one
etc
A lot of people are being confused by the lack of names for smaller units. I've talked to several people who didn't know you could buy fractions of a bitcoin at all, let alone a 100 millionth of a bitcoin. The only thing I've found people confused about is that is that you don't have to buy a whole bitcoin. No-one give a fuck about the naming convention for what point one of a bitcoin is called apart from people on here. Which they wouldn't be if everyone used a catchy and easy to remember name for the lower denomination of bitcoins. I linked to a suggestion to use the word bits. If everyone were talking about "buying bits" or "buying bits of bitcoin" their confusion would already be answered. In all this conversation, bits seems the best. A bit being .001 Well the suggestion came from reddit, and the original suggestion was that a bit would be 0.000001 BTC (100 satoshis). I think he makes a pretty good case for that. Basically, if we name it so that 1000 bits=1 USD, it's already somewhat usable today, and it's also low enough so there won't ever be a need for a discussion like this again in the future. |
|
|
|
I wish people would get the fuck over this. It's like you are trying to confuse people.
.1 = point one bitcoin
.01 = point zero one
etc
A lot of people are being confused by the lack of names for smaller units. I've talked to several people who didn't know you could buy fractions of a bitcoin at all, let alone a 100 millionth of a bitcoin. The only thing I've found people confused about is that is that you don't have to buy a whole bitcoin. No-one give a fuck about the naming convention for what point one of a bitcoin is called apart from people on here. Which they wouldn't be if everyone used a catchy and easy to remember name for the lower denomination of bitcoins. I linked to a suggestion to use the word bits. If everyone were talking about "buying bits" or "buying bits of bitcoin" their confusion would already be answered. |
|
|
|
I wish people would get the fuck over this. It's like you are trying to confuse people.
.1 = point one bitcoin
.01 = point zero one
etc
A lot of people are being confused by the lack of names for smaller units. I've talked to several people who didn't know you could buy fractions of a bitcoin at all, let alone a 100 millionth of a bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
I know. The suggestion is to call 100 satoshis a bit. That way there are 1000,000 bits in a BTC, and the current exchange rate would be ~1000 bits/USD.
The idea is that all the other naming schemes are simply to complicated. It's also wierd and confusing for a lot of people to have the most basic unit (BTC) at such a high valuation. With this suggestion, a bit would become the base unit in everyday speech, while a bitcoin remains what it is today.
Read the OP. He makes a very good case for the naming scheme he suggests.
|
|
|
|
Oh well, I missed this thread before making my thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=351172.0Anyway OP, this naming convention seem to have some traction on reddit because of its simplicity. Could you mayby add it to the poll? 100 satoshis = 1 bit = 1 millionth of a BTC |
|
|
|
I saw this post on reddit. All credits to original OP. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1rmto3/its_bits/I couldn't agree with this post anymore. The SI-prefixes simply aren't catching on, even though I've seen people pushing for them for 2+ years and the fact that mBTC has been somewhat useful for about 1 year. A "bit" is a simple memorable one-syllable word that has the possibility to catch on. Can we agree on something that works? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
