What the hell is up with all these old necro threads coming back this week? O.o
Are we really running out of topics to discuss?
I have just seen a bunch of threads related to this topic, I wanted to resurrect this thread since it has all been discussed before and so that the new people would see we already had this conversation a long time ago. |
|
|
|
Why don't they change the unit from BTC to a mBTC then everyone can afford bitcoin?
*I now kick you in the kidney* Bitcoin is no more useful if you hold 1 than in you hold 0.01, the price does not matter. You can go change the unit in your client, it should be under settings. |
|
|
|
If the some day I'll get to be a billionaire I'll invest in Bitcoins.
The thing is, if I do get to be a billionaire, it will be due to Bitcoins. No.
No. There cannot ever be a Bitcoin Billionaire.  LOL Depends ... are you only counting actual bitcoins in your wallet or can you add in things like bitcoin denominated accounts? (Are you limiting this to M0 or can we use M3?) |
|
|
|
Did I miss something critically important here? Why all the discussion to change the name. Because non-conformity to ISO 4217 is the only thing stopping them recognizing Bitcoin as a legitimate world currency! \o/ It is not necessary, but in some situations having a proper ISO code would be useful. |
|
|
|
Just got this email today from www.xe.com. When I emailed them 2 weeks ago they told me they were not considering it. Now they have seen the news and their competitors listing Bitcoin :-) Thanks for the info. Given the increased interest in Bitcoin over the past couple of weeks we are considering it. Please note that even if we do list the curency, it's unlikely we'll be able to use the popular contraction BTC as there's a specific format to currency codes and this would contravene those properties. An ISO 4217 currency code is generally built from the two digit ISO 3316 country code and a third letter for the currency. In this globally used format, BT would be the equivalent of the two letter country code. There are two problems caused by this: a) Bitcoin is not a country b) BT is already in use as an ISO3316 code for Bhutan Since the ISO doesn't have a 4217 code for Bitcoin, but BTC would conflict with the existing global standards, it's unlikely that we would that 'code' if we were to list Bitcoins. Thank you for your interest in our company and services. Sincerely, XE Currency Services Team XE.com Inc. · 1145 Nicholson Rd · Suite 200 · Newmarket · Ontario · L3Y 9C3 · Canada www.xe.com · +1 416 214-5606 · Fax +1 416 214-5607 That's why we should use XBT. I suggested this back in 2011. |
|
|
|
Well, the (pseudo)ephedrine question seems popular... Lets reverse it for fun and profit: what could be effective means to significantly hinder or stop easy removal of hydroxyl from any ephedrine stereoisomer and still keep reasonable bioavailability and vasoconstrictive properties for typical use?
Yeah, I don't think that would work. These small molecules are very specific shapes to fit into the receptors in the body which lets them act as drugs. If you change the structure, it will drastically change the bodies response. Just look as pseudoephedrine and methamphetamine, they only differ by a single atom (pseudoephedrine has one more oxygen) but have very different bodily responses. Any molecule you could build which the body could convert back to pseudoephedrine, it would be at least as easy for a "chemist" to reverse the change. |
|
|
|
So It seems to me that this forum is just people replying to the top few posts with a few words until they are allowed to leave. Correct?
Every once in a while somebody has an actual question, which I might answer, or an original thought, which I might respond to, but you are correct, most of the stuff in "Newbies" is just useless drivel of people wasting four hours trying to get out of the newbie section. I am sure glad I didn't have to go through the newbie section when I first joined the forum (Newbie forum was created a bit after I joined). |
|
|
|
For those who doubt the importance of this change, just look at XRP (Ripple). If I'm interpreting https://ripplecharts.com/markets correctly, the current price is 152,884.58 XRP for $1 Right there that sounds cheap right? Sure I'll buy a million XRP for six and a half dollars. Except that that means that the market cap is 654088.20, which is about two-thirds the market cap of bitcoin. Should ripple's market cap be anywhere near the market cap of bitcoin? No way. Bitcoin has four years and hundreds of thousands of people behind it. Ripple is new and untested. So why is Ripple beating bitcoin? Because it looks affordable. In order for bitcoin to keep growing we need to be able to recruit regular people. Regular people can't handle numbers. +1 If we redefined a bitcoin to mean what we now call a mBTC, and its price went down to $0.10, I think we'd see a lot more interest from casual investors/potential-adoptees. Going from $0.10 to $0.20 seems a lot easier than going from $100 to $200. At $200 every one is screaming 'bubble', simply because it's a big number. Just price your bitcoins in gold. Get your bitcoins quick while the price is low! Just 0.0736 XAU per bitcoin today! |
|
|
|
I agree with the one guy who seemed to have the fresh idea of picking the mid-point (four decimal places) and just calling it a "bit." That is a really cool idea because it does away with the jumble of "mBTC" and sounds NATURALLY like it should be the acting base unit of BITcoin.
This is how I work too, except that I don't have a name for it. Eight decimal places call for either 4 subdivisions of 2 places each or 2 subdivisions of 4 places each. Yes, it makes sense to name just a few groups of divisions. The midpoint is a bit and the endpoint is a Satoshi. So you can then describe everything in between in terms of these two quite easily. And, of course, you still have the full bitcoin reference as well. So these three simple names can cover very small to very large amounts easily. IMO, the math-like names are just too cumbersome. They're just awful for use in mass adoption. But with bitcoin/bit/Satoshi, you have three groups of ten thousandths that cover the whole range. But nobody uses tenthousandths. We are all used to converting from mm to m, or from km to m, or from mL to L, which are all increments of three orders of magnitude. |
|
|
|
I am just coming back to the subject of that topic because I am wondering now.. What's the use of designing a bitcoin note ? Sorry if it's a silly question, but i was believing such things would never exist since bitcoin is a virtual cryptocurrency. That means you'll have to write a private key on a your note ? And then it would exchangeable only one time (and personally i won't trusty somebody giving me such a paper and telling me "ok , here you go, here are your 10 btc" oh and have you thought about learning about design and stuff before starting your project ? Think about it more like a personal check. There must be some people you would trust to hand you a personal check, right? Like your mother, or your best friend, or your boss. Why wouldn't you trust one of these people to hand you a bitcoin note as well? |
|
|
|
|
Satoshi set the decimal point by taking the total number of units and sticking a decimal point in the middle. (21 000 000.000 000 00)
Or you can see it is four sets of four digits, equally arranged around the decimal point (2100 0000.0000 0000)
|
|
|
|
I totally agree, and I 'll try most of the time to use mBTC.
i actually think it's a big issue that could stop bitcoin from rising up in value. I would not like to own 0 point xxx of something and if i can't afford the full thing i'll certainly switch to something cheaper lite litecoin.
And I would add that, I am not a big fan of the "satoshi" thing ..Yeah I know it's cool it put some kind geeky mystic aura in that cryptocurrency but (with all respect I have for that Satoshi person or group of person) I don't think it's a good marketing idea for bitcoin. It might not sound really serious, really reassuring, really cool for many people ..including me actually
Unless I can buy 1 Google, I am just going to go buy something else. I do not want to own 0.000000001 Google, I want the whole damn thing. Why is Google so expensive? They should lower the price so I can have it ... Satoshi had no idea what the price of a bitcoin was going to be. He just put the decimal about half way through the total (21 000 000.000 000 00), and that is why a bitcoin is the size it is. |
|
|
|
How would you read bitcoin in french? "beet-kwahn"? That probably looks silly to you Yes I suppose you can write "beet" in english to represent the way would pronounce "bit" in french as for "coin" in english I can't write it using roman letters because you don't have that sound in english but in phonetic alphabet it should be "kwɛ̃" .. so in french bitcoin = "beet"+[kwɛ̃] Now yes it sounds a little funny to me but I am not sure why exactly. Probably because "bit" sounds like "bitte" in french which is a slang term for "dick" and also "coin" ([kwɛ̃] ) sounds like what ducks do [kwɛ̃] [kwɛ̃] [kwɛ̃] [kwɛ̃] . An other reason could be that it's still a new word and I haven't heard a lot of french speaking people pronouncing it yet. I don't speak dutch / hindi , chinese or any other language (beside french / english / thai) but I suppose some other language could have very different way to pronounce it, and it might also sound funny Heck, it sounds funny to me whenever I hear somebody actually say "bitcoin", and I am a natural English speaker. I read about bitcoins on the forum all the time, but I don't actually hear people say it often. Probably just something to get used to over time. |
|
|
|
I can tell you how to write it in thai : บิทคอยน์
It won't be pronounced like you'd pronounce bitcoin in english though, it should sound like "bitkoy"
Everywhere we use roman characters (abcde...) the word won't change but the pronunciation might differ a lot. In my concern I am french and I pronounce it the french way (even though I got not problems with english language and even if it kind of sounds silly in french)
How would you read bitcoin in french? "beet-kwahn"? That probably looks silly to you |
|
|
|
I always put £20, this way petrol prices never go up for me!
You are paying 20 for a liter of gas? Wow, that's expensive! |
|
|
|
When I buy water, I never buy less than 1.0 gallon. (wait, no, I bought a 1/8 gallon bottle of water the other day) When I buy land, I never buy less than 1.0 acres. (wait, no, my house is on less than 1/4 acre) When I buy fabric, I never buy less than 1.0 yard. (wait, no, sometimes if I only need a small amount I get less) The whole argument that people want to buy a whole bitcoin is silly. And anybody who claims bitcoin has a higher barrier to entry now than six months ago because the price went up should be kicked in the kidney. It is just as easy to buy 100 usd worth of bitcoins now as it was six months ago.
actually i don't like the idea of cents or millicoins, and i don't think it's easy to work in numbers like millions
i ask again, why not find a name for the middle unit 0.0001 BTX? and then we keep the discussion for most people in the realm of 5 digits.
Why invent something new when we can just take the metric system which people are familiar with and use mB (read millibits)? Everybody knows 0.001 L = 1 mL and 0.001 g = 1 mg, so it just makes perfect sense for 0.001 BTC = 1 mB . so 1 satoshi = 0.00001 mB, that is a bit easier to read than 1 satoshi = 0.00000001 BTC |
|
|
|
I think that bitcoin is too unstable, and if this trend continues, it'll never reach a value of even $1000 per coin.
Really agree. I think that BTC don't will be strong stable never (or not in the nexts 5-10 years). But maybe we will see this price caused for the reduced number of bitcoins compared to population. I also agree, just imagine how many people would sell their bitcoins when they hit $1000 or $500 even. People fear the instability and want to cash out and hedge their losses generally. The bitcoin would have to crush fiat to truly climb. 6 months ago people would have been saying the same thing about getting to 100 USD. But the people who sell have to be selling to somebody, so for every person who sold at 100 because they thought the price was going too high, there is somebody who bought at 100 because they think the price could go higher still and/or they think 100 is a good price. It's interesting when you put it that way. It's a good thing to know someone has high hopes for the future of bitcoin. Hmmm.... Unless it stablises, it cannot be used to buy and sell things in the real world, until then it is only worth what speculation means it is perceived as being worth. I am a believer, but it's a long road to these kind of values and if it does 'spike' to 2000 bucks, a lot of damage when it crashes back down will make a lot of mess. People were buying at 250USD + recently, and they got burned. there will be a lot more money at stake at the 2000 mark, and it may not be good news. The price now is what we make it, it does not reflect a real value - there isn't one that is measurable other than in the actual bitcoin market propped up by the beliefs of those who hold - and trade in it. Even unstable it can be used to buy and sell things in the real world. What is required is a way to convert to and from fiat within a very short period of time. If I am selling something and can turn bitcoins that I receive in payment into fiat before the price changes, then I am not exposed to risk. I can denominate my prices in whatever units my buyers are familiar with, maintaining a constant price in the currency that works best for me.n This doesn't require stability over days or weeks, just over hours. You do not necessarily have to have a way to convert your fiat into bitcoin immediately to avoid the currency exchange risk (or the other way around, depending on which you want to keep), you could use futures contracts to lock in an agreeable rate. The expanded use of futures will come with the market maturing, and they will help to stabilize the price. If you are able to set the price now, then you can take your time conducting your business without worrying what the market price will be when the transaction is complete. |
|
|
|
Can we just agree that EVERYONE Austrian or Keynesian expects the exchange rate for real goods and services against BTC will rise and BTC's will buy more in the future. All you Austrians have been arguing that will happen, have been advocating people hoard coins in anticipation of future consumption higher then the consumption deferred to buy and hoard the coins and so far (outside of some crashes) your prediction has been correct, BTC appreciated massively.
Now if a Keynesian when using the term 'deflation' means that price appreciation then by golly they are correctly describing BTC by what that word means to THEM. If someone else with this weird idea that these words mean only nominal changes in money supply says BTC is inflating then yes they are also right by what that word means to them. All we have here is a disagreement over what words mean, not the nature of BTC which everyone agrees on undeniable fact, that of growing supply and appreciation in value.
Now I'm going to argue that the so called 'Keynsian' (really everyone excluding a few wackos) definition of inflation/deflation is correct. Why because it actually MEANS something to an economy and an individual, where as the nominal money supply tells us nothing about an economy or what to do as an individual. Real inflation is an incentive to spend, real deflation is an incentive to save, BTC clearly falls under that latter kind of incentive structure (the Austrian and Keynsian would now have an actual disagreement over if this is good or bad). If I make a statement about nominal money supply while ignoring the population of users, the quantity of production and the demand for consumption of those users I've ignored so many CRITICAL factors that I no longer say anything meaningful about the signals being sent, are individuals under an incentive to spend or to save, I haven't said one way or the other unless I make the assumption that ALL the other factors are constant which this narrow definition explicitly excludes if it mean ONLY nominal money supply.
No, I don't think we can all agree about that. We can all agree that the supply of bitcoins is increasing, therefore there is (monetary) inflation. But the price of bitcoins requires knowing other things, which can be guessed at but are unknown. These things include the adoption of bitcoin, the usage vectors of bitcoins, and the amount of credit built on top of the bitcoin economy. We can say that if things continue to go the way they are now going then the price in bitcoins will go down and we can describe it as price deflation, but that relies on events unfolding as you predict them to. If you look back at the historical price of bitcoins, there have been several upward movements which are correlated with influxes of people to the bitcoin economy, followed by long, slow downward trends. This is because bitcoins are in fact inflating, and without influx of new money the price is pushed down by the increased supply. If you look at the historical price data (it helps to put it on a log chart so you can see the movement a couple years ago), you can see that this effect was more pronounced years ago when bitcoins were inflating at a higher rate. |
|
|
|
I also did not see the analogy.
Let's illustrate the illustrative analogy by the help of an illustrative analogous table: Thesis. In the general discussion of currency (A) at issue is the problem of inflation (B). The fact is that Bitcoin allows creation of new currency (C) through market-controlled mechanisms (D) but not through fiat, or if you prefer political, mechanisms (F). Analogy. In the general discussion of human life (A') at issue is the problem of procreation (B'). The fact is that marriage allows the creation of new people (C') through intra-marriage mechanisms (D') but not through public, or if you prefer orgiastic, anonymous, polyamorous, loser-gets-some-action-too mechanisms (F'). Therefore bitcoins are the analogue of married women, Bitcoin (as a protocol) the analogue of marriage, politics the analogue of irresponsible, venereal-disease ridden, slovenly, high-risk sexual behaviors. Finally Bitcoin finance is the analogue of wholesome family relations. A pregnant analogy, perhaps. And a pretty clever one at that. I think the analogy is not horrible, it was just worded poorly. It seems to be saying "a woman" when it should be saying "women", because clearly there are specific married women who are sterile, which confuses the reader, when instead it should be referring to married women generally. I might be just nitpicking from a native English speaker perspective. An analogy is like a joke, if you must explain it then it failed. Now, whether that is the teller or the hearer's fault might depend on the circumstances. |
|
|
|
How much is the fee for the service?
Quoting is good ... Who were you directing that question at? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
