Good effort, and headed in the right direction. However, the suggested units diverge wildly from the universally-accepted SI system, and are therefore counterproductive.
It is good that the emerging acceptance by forex markets of XBT for the currency code is acknowledged. But it appears that prefixing this by a modifying character immediately transforms 'XBT' to being 1/100,000,000 of the amount without modifier. This is lunacy.
Why not just employ SI directly? In this model, using the widespread 'satoshi'* to indicate 1/100,000,000 XBT:
1 XBT = 100,000,000 satoshis
1 dXBT = 10,000,000 satoshis
1 cXBT = 1,000,000 satoshis
1 mXBT = 100,000 satoshis
1 uXBT = 100 satoshis (I'd use the 'mu' character here rather than 'u')
In this manner, you solve your 'humans don't deal well with decimals' problem (an assertion of which I am not necessarily convinced), while still retaining compatibility with the universal many-generations-old SI system.
Incidentally, 'm' does not denote '*1,000,000', it denotes '/1,000'. You're looking for 'M' - mega, not 'm' - milli.
I'd concede a fundamental unit might be helpful here.
Thanks for the feedback. I will update the casing accordingly.
In regards to direct usage of the SI in relation to Bitcoin; it isn't a system which is going to be readily recognisable by the masses at this stage and you have to go down pretty far and use non standard characters to represent the micro. Logically it is sound, however I'm not sure how the names would stand up in usage practically. It definitely has potential but all of the units which will likely make up the majority of its usage as a currency sound small. Also not sure how much it matters but the Bitcoin is almost a Super Unit as I understand it in both our scenarios.
1 XBT = 100,000,000 satoshis = 1 Bitcoin
1 dXBT = 10,000,000 satoshis = 1 Deci-Bitcoin
1 cXBT = 1,000,000 satoshis = 1 Centi-Bitcoin
1 mXBT = 100,000 satoshis = 1 Milli-Bitcoin
1 μXBT = 100 satoshis = 1 Micro-Bitcoin
1
= 1 satoshi = 1 Satoshi
I can make neither head nor tail of your "shorthand markup" column.
The same problem is apparent with our existing system. To simplify things the base unit symbol can be utilised in co-ordination with the appropriate prefix which could be an argument in favour of using fractions rather than multiples.
1
BTC = 100,000,000 satoshis = 1 Bitcoin
1 d
BTC = 10,000,000 satoshis = 1 Deci-Bitcoin
1 c
BTC = 1,000,000 satoshis = 1 Centi-Bitcoin
1 m
BTC = 100,000 satoshis = 1 Milli-Bitcoin
1 μ
BTC = 100 satoshis = 1 Micro-Bitcoin
1
= 1 satoshi = 1 Satoshi
Whichever approach is taken needs to be rational and easily representable both in everyday usage and in systems. Most currency based systems are not designed to 8 decimal places with some even having hard restrictions which could potentially slow down business adoption of Bitcoin with legacy software hence the initial desire for units based on multiples rather than fractions.
Using Kilobit and Megabit is, in my opinion, a bad idea, it will be confusing.
I'd be interested to know why you think this. In most cases people are already familiar with this scale and terminology so applying the numeric values to a digital currency doesn't seem too much of a stretch.
Because it's already used. You can't use the same name for two different thing... It would create confusion for sure !
Well starting from scratch it might be MegaBitcoin but that would remove the logic as it doesn't relate to the current Bitcoin unit and is quite a mouthful. A KiloSatoshi based on the existing system and with a nod to the creator could work however it is also quite wordy. Other suggestions are welcome on how to make it work but it is the underlying logic that needs to be ascertained at the same time in a way that works and can easily be represented and utilised by users and developers.
Show Posts
