I certainly feel that XBT for 1 bitcoin is a better choice than XBI for 1 bit, mainly because the term "bitcoin" is far better established (one can even look it up in the dictionary).  Currency codes are very much a realm for formality, accuracy, unambiguity, and stability; XBI for one "bit" is simply not appropriate today given the youth and contention surrounding the term.  If the 100-satoshi unit is desired (e.g. for decimal point-related issues) and the working group wants to push this now then I think the only appropriate term to build around is "microbitcoin".  This is not the end of the world (The formal UK currency name is the cumbersome "Pound sterling" yet, GBP works and people get by with slang such as "pounds" or "quid" in everyday situations).

People are unlikely to write "0.000 98 XBT" or "980 XBI" in my opinion but they may well write "980 bits".


Just in case the working group hasn't seen it, here's an Old, short, Bitcoin Foundation discussion on the topic.


I quite like the µBTC idea.

Another thought: Perhaps a "µ" with a bar through it, "µ" say, would be easier to get given that "₥" for a mill already exists and is currency agnostic.  I could certainly see prices like "1500µ" (or "µ1500") being commonly read as "fifteen hundred bits" but also sometimes "fifteen hundred mikes" or "one point five mills".

I feel worth stressing a second time is that, given the current upset surrounding the 100-satoshi term, it might be wise to simply work on a currency code for the "bitcoin" unit for now, leaving the issue of the smaller unit to settle for a few years.

Disclaimer: While I've honestly tried to be unbiased and logical, it's no secret that I openly oppose the term "bit" for 100 satoshis.

A single nanobitcoin cannot be handled by the protocol (yet) but it certainly exists as a concept.  Amounts smaller than a satoshi can be handled by exchanges and third-party payment systems.

A tenth of a US cent (also known as a mill) certainly exists as a concept.  I do believe that various gas stations in the US quote prices accurate to tenths of a cent.

Then why not make BitLicense completely optional?  Those that sign up can wear their BitLicense like a badge of honour, evidence that they're less likely to scam you.  Those that don't can avoid the costs of the regulations and are free to search for better ways to improve their trustability.

As a user, I try to balance the probability of being scammed against the increased costs and reduced privacy that a BitLicense-like business entails.  Forgetting ethics for a moment: Why does taking the choice away from me help me?

The proposed changes are most assuredly a step in the wrong direction.

Ah, I knew I should have checked the "allow people to change their votes" box.  I can't fix that now I'm afraid.



I've extended the "other" option to catch these cases.

Yeah, I thought about this one too but decided against it as I feared a huge number of posts explaining how both names are terrible.  I also thought about asking for "bitcent" to avoid the inevitable "A 10th of a satoshi doesn't exist." posts but didn't want to fan flames in the direction of the satoshi.

I'm trying to gauge the current state of Bitcoin's nomenclature from a different angle.

Relatively speaking, June 2011 marks the peak of Bitcoin's largest bubble, even if we consider the two bubbles of 2013 as one.

Lol, yeah, I remember commenting on that back in March.

Good luck zibcoin!

Ha, I never knew this.  Thanks.

Did you consider adding Gavin's recent endorsement of "bits" to your list?

With all due respect to Gavin, I very much disagree.  Even with his support I expect there will be significant resistance to the "bits" movement for a long time to come.  I've written about the merits and demerits of "bits" in several places but allow me to relay my key point:

• "mikes" is just like "bits" but it is much older and is backwards compatible with the unit "bitcoin".

I've heard no good, logical counter to "mikes" over "bits" up until now.  I can think of one myself, that "bits" is currently more popular than "mikes", but I do not feel that the current lead of "bits" is yet sufficient to pay for its drawbacks.  If "bits" continues to gain in popularity and support, then my support will eventually follow naturally.  I have tremendous respect for network effects and, after all, language is for communicating.

He said on page 8 of a thread entitled "When quoting small amounts of bitcoin, how do you call 100 satoshis?"

This stuff seems interesting to me but I lack background, background that is not so easy to find.  Do you have good links for more basic questions: "What precisely is a flash crash?", "Why are they considered bad?", "Are they actually bad?".

The format of that thread is of a running total.  The 20.0001 BTC figure was simply used as an example of how SgtSpike wanted posters to report their lost bitcoins.  They're up to 134 582.378 646 59 BTC, just over 1% of the total current bitcoin supply.

This limerick is about Bitcoin. 
Is there a word rhyming with "Bitcoin"? 
  I can't think of one 
  and this rhyme's nearly done 
so I guess I'll end on the word "Bitcoin". 

I carefully backed up my keys
To ensure I could pay for the freeze.
  Cryogenics it's true!
  To the future I flew!
That'll be thirty million doge please.

I think you must mean allinvain.  25 000 BTC was a colossal loss but he didn't kill himself.  In fact, he last logged in just yesterday.

I know this is an old question but I was bored.

As of block 326 219 (2014-10-20 23:15:09) I see 50 627 736 distinct addresses in the blockchain (including those with a balance of zero).  There are 2¹⁶⁰ = 1 461 501 637 330 902 918 203 684 832 716 283 019 655 932 542 976 different possible addresses (minor assumption about RIPEMD-160 here).  Thus, we've used 3.464*10^-39% of all possible addresses (4.s.f).  That's 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 003 464% (4.s.f).

I'm willing to bet I've made an error or two here.

While the services may be necessary, the government is not.

The reality is that, for most people, it's too early to get involved.  There's still much work to be done.

Yes, we very much want to avoid doing something reasonable for today and pass this point along to future generations.  Hard forks are not nice and having a committee decide on an appropriate maximum block size every so often is out of the question (a central point of failure).

Unfortunately, there's no easy way of doing what you'd like.  Bitcoin itself has no conception of a market agent; it certainly can't distinguish between them or count them.  Bitcoin itself can't know if the system is highly decentralised or if all the addresses and all the hash power are controlled by a single party.

We might be able to come up with a probabilistic or economic solution but no algorithm can measure decentralisation with certainty.  Perhaps some blockchain-based metric may suggest that the system is decentralised (or under attack by an economically irrational agent) with high probability.  However, I expect that any such algorithm, no matter how subtle, will yield an equally subtle attack where a single agent attempts to appear to be many agents.